PDA

View Full Version : Is David Wilcock any good



jonsnow
10th May 2015, 22:33
I saw years ago a video from Project Camelot he said he was self-professed reincarnation of Edgar Cayce . He never was a whistle-blower for me I believe you can only speak of what you experienced from horses mouth so to speak. Am I wrong is his stuff any good ?:nails:

I am I admit a huge fan of Bob Dean Project Camelot but he been there done that was a solder top secret clearance .
:yoda:

mojo
10th May 2015, 22:57
There are supporters on both sides of that question on our forum... so I would say go with what resonates with you there are certainly other researchers like Richard Dolan and Dean as you mentioned that resonate more with my belief.

GoodETxSG
10th May 2015, 22:59
Hello jonsnow,

FYI/His last name is Wilcock,

"WilCOX" has been used by haters for some time as a derogatory way to make fun of his last name that is an obvious reference to a certain part of a males anatomy.

Thank you,
Corey/GoodETxSG

modwiz
10th May 2015, 23:00
His last name is Wilcock, for a literate start. He is running a business, whoever his client base is values what he says. Pretty simple. Believing what he says is a mixed bag. Last three hour talk had about 5 minutes of new intel for me and it did not rock my world either.

David has "fans" and his approach apparently works for them and him.

Live and let live.

jonsnow
10th May 2015, 23:04
sorry for getting his name wrong in my defensive I googled it before I posted it

:fpalm: my bad

The One
10th May 2015, 23:07
I find it quite coincidental that after we closed this thread here http://jandeane81.com/threads/6786-Summary-of-David-Wilcock-s-Presentation-April-2015-Update-SSP-Sphere-Beings-etc and are still talking about it another one starts.I have amended the name

Here is hoping for a civilised thread and discussions without conflict.

GoodETxSG
10th May 2015, 23:07
:)
It's all good. Thanks for making the change... I didn't think you meant to be disrespectful from your previous posts. It would be nice to change the over all tone of posts here even between those who do not agree on subject matter. I am doing my best to do my part.
Corey/GoodETxSG

modwiz
10th May 2015, 23:19
sorry for getting his name wrong in my defensive I goggled it before I posted it

:fpalm: my bad

This is humor from me.

If you had googled instead of goggled, the spelling might have been easier to see. LOL. Those goggles might need a cleaning.

No harm, all is well.

fiz
11th May 2015, 00:02
Is DW any good? As far as the service function he is currently performing, both in general and more recently with Corey, I would say that DW is uniquely effective.

The real question for me here is: Why?

I think it is a combination of DW dogged commitment to his purpose, as well as his singular mix of both past lives and his present character that give him the ability to navigate this current moment of history with a certain instinctive capacity and grace.

David gets a fair amount of flack for his personal style of delivery, but at the end of the day, my take on this is that his humor and confidence on stage (as he says) -- are most likely what helps him stay effective. How could anyone survive this long doing what he does without having a certain natural ability?

Is DW perfect? Of course not. Is his presentation style for everyone? Apparently not. Will he help pave the way for the kinds of positive changes on the planet we are here to witness and participate in? I am certain that he is and will continue to.

To anyone who would dismiss DW based on his personality/character/style, etc., that is entirely the business of the individual. While admitting my own 'style preferences' to be at times pretty different from DW's own, I am also very, very glad that he is doing exactly what he is doing, and being as effective as he is in doing it. Yes, there are other researchers doing great work in this field -- David just has a knack for effective communication about subject matters that could very easily alienate his audience. What I find happens with me when listening to his "slapstick" delivery style is that it has a funny way of making the dreadful reality he is otherwise disclosing speakable, thinkable, and approachable.

The crotchety schoolmarm in me might ask DW to please tone it down from time to time and reign it in. But the passionate warrior in me that knows you can't reach the younger generation with philosophical calm alone quietly smiles and roots him on.

(Note that I am not a fan or follower of DW, though I have invested in his film "Convergence" years ago -- without misgivings, mind you. As far as I'm concerned, David has pursued this film production with integrity, and for all I know, it will eventually be made and released. Here's hoping anyway.)

Dreamtimer
11th May 2015, 00:37
I hadn't realized the misspelling was used in a derogatory manner though it does shed light on his penchant to joke about his privates. As long as he keeps them that way, I'm alright.

I think David has experienced what we all have. Feeling something big is near and being unable to pinpoint when.

He seems to have owned up to his mistakes and forged ahead with what he sees as his mission. He seems to consistently end with something positive. Hopefully that means he leaves good energy in his wake.

There is quite a lot of free material on his site and of course the Gaiam TV trial period if you want to see his newer shows.

Wyndstorm
11th May 2015, 02:26
I never got to hang out with David, though family acquaintances have hung out with him, and only speak about how sensitive of a guy he is, super down do earth, gentle soul.

He does have a "stage presence" and I personally haven't always agree with him either, but i still support him and have read all his books and articles , and give when I am able.

Really, I'm very grateful for his presence on the planet and really glad he's physically stuck around here to assist with things. Plus, he's quirky and funny. Maybe not for the serious types, but the last I checked, laughter is excellent medicine.... I choose to focus on laughing more....

It's sure I shells a lot better than crying.

Chester
11th May 2015, 02:43
I can only report and document my experience.

I purchased a 4 part video David Wilcock made for $77 in 2011.

At the beginning, David Wilcock goes into a draconian style message that anyone who violates in any form what he is calling copyrighted material will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law

“A couple minor points of business that I would like to start with first of all… “

just after he tells folks where they can find the art he is using in this series, we see a sceen display – Piracy Warning – Please do not copy this material.
“Furthermore we would like to give you a warning about pircay. It is very important that the content of this video be protected. this is privileged, protected content.

He then makes statements pertaining to someone showing thie video publicly… all fine and good IMO – Damages assessed at $77 per video viewing.

We do have staff monitoring bit torrent, file sharing… - ok all fine and good still.

Confidentiality Warning –
This material is presented under exclusive copyright of David Wilcock, 2010
Any website, email, public address, MP3, video, etc. using this content will be considered a copyright violation.

“either in terms of footage clips (that’s ok) or thematic material (wait.. what?) will be considered a copyright violation.

Of course you can talk in general terms about what you have learned here (wow… Thanks David… I can talk in general terms about your somehow now copyrighted material which, is essentially for the most part simply the perennial philosophy which is as old as perhaps the universe itself) … but please do not teach the material as it is presented here.”

“This is proprietary information… it is important to refer people back to this video… you can allude to the fact that you’ve learned some valuable things and maybe give a few examples but please do not dive in and begin teaching this content as if it was yours to teach (you mean like you have David Wilcock?)"


So in summary, David Wilcock… formerly the champion for humanity (remember Drake and all the mass arrests? Remember Neil Keenon and the return of the world’s gold to the people?) is now using the very system which he has, in part, made his career based on exposing? Yes, “copyrighting” is a tool of the system. To enforce copyright laws requires using the courts and enforcement agencies.

Now, let’s say your real goal is to have humanity's best interests in mind… Are you going to make a 4 minute draconian statement at the beginning of this video (as well as strong reiterations at the beginning of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th) or are you going to encourage folks help wake up the rest of humanity not just with how you “teach” the perennial philosophy yourself but the fact that if there be ownership to this information, it belongs to all sentient living creatures?!


So anyways - the fact is that all I wrote above is actual real provable data as I still have the 4 part series and have made certain no one had access to accessing Accessing the Higher Self.

Wyndstorm
11th May 2015, 02:54
Right Sam. Totally agree with you, also, one of my personal disagreements woth David. He also never commented on the OPPT Foreclosures of all corporations, govt bank strawman included, which holds total validity seen by many well respected Judges and such.

But I still love David, and pray that one day his eyes & heart too will open to the "bigger picture." Nothing would be "paid for", because everything already is "prepaid, preauthorizied, and preapproved, " and shared freely. But I suppose we're still playing in that damned money system still...

Oh well, can't hold it against him. LOVE YOU DAVE! :hugs:

GoodETxSG
11th May 2015, 03:17
I never got to hang out with David, though family acquaintances have hung out with him, and only speak about how sensitive of a guy he is, super down do earth, gentle soul.

He does have a "stage presence" and I personally haven't always agree with him either, but i still support him and have read all his books and articles , and give when I am able.

Really, I'm very grateful for his presence on the planet and really glad he's physically stuck around here to assist with things. Plus, he's quirky and funny. Maybe not for the serious types, but the last I checked, laughter is excellent medicine.... I choose to focus on laughing more....

It's sure I shells a lot better than crying.

Indeed he is a completely different person off stage than he is on stage. Prior to the last 6 months I had never spent time with him personally. I had only conversed with him remotely in previous years. He always came across as laid back and very respectful in those settings.

Spending time as his guest in his home a few times now for a week each time I have seen what kind of a person he is. He is a good guy... Some people have a problem that he has figured out a way to rent a house and afford to put protein in his body while being in this field. Mostly it is ignorant people who have no idea how little money people actually make on books (Bestsellers or not) and how more than half of any money they make at conferences goes to taxes, travel and hotel expenses... The rest they have to rat hole back to live off of. In doing so they get called a "Capitalist Pig" or "Selling Hope and The Peoples Truth"...

But again these are all people that have never met him and are ignorant of what kind of life he actually lives, what kind of hardships he had for bringing some information out to the public... And how many people have assumed he is rich and have tried to con him out of money.

I do not have his permission to post the serious hardships I have witnessed him go through and that he has shared with me... One day it will be shared with people in some format and many will be shocked at what all he has had to deal with while doing the work he does. He does work hard, literally spending 14+ hours a day, 7 days a week researching and working on these subjects/information.

He wouldn't be the keynote speaker or headline appearance at every conference he appears at for nothing. Haters will always hate, but there are far more that love him and want more of his information than there are (The very noisy) detractors out there...

I am finding out first hand that is the case for most people (Negative, Loathing, Lower Vibrational Emotional, Haters being reactionary about information without all of the facts, often fooling themselves to be comfortable in their established reality bubbles) that have formed opinions and become so reactionary about the information I have been bringing out recently, When you add DW to the equation you get many times the loud noisy hate but many, many more times the love, caring and support by the quieter yet higher vibratory emotional people out there. They are the ones that make dealing with all of the vitreous and fuming hatred worth it in the end.

IMHO and Experience,
Corey/GoodETxSG

xenaphobic
11th May 2015, 03:33
I follow him. I signed up for Gaiam tv just to follow his Wisdom teachings. I still believe it is a great deal, a bargain. He has cutting edge information on physics, astronomy, and just the nature of universe that it really is like a fun ongoing college course for me. But the $45 for a single streaming presentation? I am an accountant/economist and I think the company that sponsors those conferences has not done a proper price structure analysis. If they charged 20 maybe 25 dollars, they would get a lot more purchases. I can't believe that they can recoup their costs, charging so much per viewer. Not even the most expensive movies to produce, charge that much!!
As I said, David is a great teacher, and his science knowledge is amazing. I think he is a genuinely nice person who has taken some risks with the bleeding edge of conspiracy theories. I hope his forecasts come true, with the fewest number harmed. It is like following two people, the person with ancient and scientific knowledge, and the other who works with the (so far) unproveable. It doesn't hurt to keep watching and hoping. But I will keep my hopes on the reservation ice, so to speak, for the moment. He makes me laugh though. I appreciate his geeky sense of humor.

Chester
11th May 2015, 03:34
Right Sam. Totally agree with you, also, one of my personal disagreements woth David. He also never commented on the OPPT Foreclosures of all corporations, govt bank strawman included, which holds total validity seen by many well respected Judges and such.

But I still love David, and pray that one day his eyes & heart too will open to the "bigger picture." Nothing would be "paid for", because everything already is "prepaid, preauthorizied, and preapproved, " and shared freely. But I suppose we're still playing in that damned money system still...

Oh well, can't hold it against him. LOVE YOU DAVE! :hugs:

And in fact... I was speaking with [another member] about this. And [this member] shared with me some insight related to his younger days and some exposure he had in relation to someone who was close enough to have influence over him. I have been there. I understood and wanted to give DW another chance. ... And yet, why has DW still not released these interviews? ... Anyways I wished to give DW another chance ... . And I am beginning to think nothing will Wilcock provide the public of any substance that he provides for free.

Thanks DW for requiring us to use the very system which you champion yourself to be freeing us from.

Chester
11th May 2015, 04:46
Of course and its sad to admit but when you observe most of humanity, you see those happy to settle for what they are fed by the media. And then of course, this includes much of the so called Alternative Media. And note, it doesn't have to be about the money... it can also be about the fulfillment of a savior complex or a desire to be something when they can't find a way to be it any other way. Some folks are so desperate to be liked and listened to and believed, they will go to any lengths to achieve the filling of that giant crater of a hole in their life. In fact, I would make it quite heavy odds this is far more the case than it ever being anything about the money.

So for me its clear... as long as there are enough people (those who are anything but positive outside of airy fairy new agy wagy positive swayed by disinfo and information twisting, non-vibrational (can’t even feel a soul pulse), laughing behind your back types who keep hearing “chaching” everytime their site hit count goes up another 100, or even better, get the warm fuzzies over ego strokes, hidebound via deflection and table turning, dowdy, happy to be the the pied piper so others' reality zones are stirred into sad manipulations such that the vulnerable become distracted by fantasy instead of focused on the daily reality happening right before their eyes) that there’s another sucker born every day.

Still, I am optimistic that one day... enough of us wake up... not suck up... truly wake up.

grannyfranny
11th May 2015, 05:01
I have worked in several fields where people felt that my services and creativity should be a freebee to get the material products of the contract. I sympathize with David and others who provide intellectual property. Somehow we have raised several generations of people who feel that whatever other people do should be free but not their work.

I don't know how much of this is because of the dumbing down process of education, more and more free government handouts, lots of "you are worth it" advertising and a great deal of social engineering designed to turn people into robot like slaves.

Since the internet has turned into an adult toy, the number of complaints has risen dramatically. People do not seem capable of making choices only about complaining. Some day things maybe free but it will require much greater attention to where our culture is going and where we want it to go on behalf of future generations.

ERK
11th May 2015, 05:08
Prior to meeting DW, I really liked him even though the majority of his material was not panning out. I stopped following his material years ago and I stick with more tried and true researchers (Timothy Good is my favorite researcher on the UFOlogy aspect and I like his gentlemanly mannerisms- the aspect of how a researcher conducts himself is key to me, same can be said of whistleblowers as character lends a lot to credibility IMO).

Chester
11th May 2015, 05:12
I have worked in several fields where people felt that my services and creativity should be a freebee to get the material products of the contract. I sympathize with David and others who provide intellectual property. Somehow we have raised several generations of people who feel that whatever other people do should be free but not their work.

I don't know how much of this is because of the dumbing down process of education, more and more free government handouts, lots of "you are worth it" advertising and a great deal of social engineering designed to turn people into robot like slaves.

Since the internet has turned into an adult toy, the number of complaints has risen dramatically. People do not seem capable of making choices only about complaining. Some day things maybe free but it will require much greater attention to where our culture is going and where we want it to go on behalf of future generations.

Hi, I agree that in our world today, if someone has an original idea, and they are able to put that idea out into the lives of others in a practical way that benefits the lives of others such that these others procure the product then the "inventor" surely should benefit from their invention.

What I DO have a problem with is someone attempting to copyright the perennial philosophy which has been written about by thousands of authors and has sprung up spontaneously through multiple unconnected cultures almost as if the knowledge is brought forth from the morphegentic grid and is knowledge held within the heart and soul of every sentient living being.

That is essentially what DW attempted to scare folks into... into being fearful to share with others the perennial philosophy where the vulnerable would say... better just buy DW's video series (to be safe!)

Quite a difference.

RealityCreation
11th May 2015, 06:42
Is there really any benefit in becoming personal & discussing a person?

From my point of view we all create the version of the seemingly outward person that we are seeing projected on the screen in front of us. We create and experience the version of them (another Self) that we are currently in resonance with via our own beliefs and perceptions.

So there are multiple versions of everyone including David, Corey, myself - the cheater, the liar, the friend, the guru, the leader, the whistleblower, the XYZ - choose your own label. As soon as you label someone or something you have created a judgement & collapsed the wave function into the version of them that you are choosing to experience them as. The trick is in realising if you are consciously choosing or are unknown beliefs doing the choosing of the version for you.

Surely it is the information / message which should be of most interest rather than the messenger. The information will either resonate, partially resonate or not resonate & again the way the information is perceived will be according to your own beliefs - conscious or subconscious.

Chester
11th May 2015, 07:05
Surely it is the information / message which should be of most interest rather than the messenger. The information will either resonate, partially resonate or not resonate & again the way the information is perceived will be according to your own beliefs - conscious or subconscious.

I agree with this - and that is why I pointed out examples of actions that bothered me. The action of claiming to own the information that is most intimate to each of our souls.

Its too bad I had to name the being behind those actions. Sadly, actions do get associated to the one who acted out those actions.

Its called personal responsibility.

The title of the thread is - Is David Wilcock any good.

I gave information that may help a reader decide. Can he change? Sure... starts with an acknowledgment of things one might wish to change, next comes an apology and then the apology is made good based on whether the change actually comes forth.

Church
11th May 2015, 07:10
Is there really any benefit in becoming personal & discussing a person?

I find this to be a refreshing point of view to see posted by a member. We have been discussing this very specific question in the staff forum, and we still aren't sure if it's necessary to establish a rule against it, honestly. We have a rule in place about not calling out other members here, but nothing explicitly states not to start threads about individuals who are notable in various fields, because there are legitimate reasons to have to mention people. But we are actively working toward establishing a new theme around here, where content becomes more important than personality. So we are trying to find a balance, which is a lot easier said than done.

Truth is, when I first saw this thread I immediately wondered why we have to question David Wilcock the person, instead of his work. Honestly, some people like him, some people don't, and some people don't have an opinion on him... Isn't that how these things always poll? So it does seem like nothing conclusive could really come out of this discussion in the end.

I humbly ask our members to try to go forward from here and think about focusing on content more than personality. Content is much easier to have discourse about than whether a person is "any good."

Maunagarjana
11th May 2015, 08:02
I've read David's books and articles and listened to his lectures and find great value in them. I've read endless amounts of petty gripes and criticisms by his detractors and I find no value in them. My 2 units of currency.

RealityCreation
11th May 2015, 08:59
Hi Sam,

I wasn't referring to your post or implying any criticism to either you or actually whoever began the thread. I was responding in a general way according to how I believe reality is created & the people who propagate it & just taking the title as an example.

I am not always good at conveying what I mean via the writing medium. I much prefer talking rather than writing so I apologise if you felt my comment was directed at you.

As far as I am able I prefer to not cast judgement upon people & again I am not implying anything about anyone else. In fact, I have been called up for jury duty twice several years ago (over here it is compulsory to attend) & I have refused to do it because of my personal belief system.


I like David but I am not an ardent follower of his work. I came across him many years ago when I was just beginning to research many of the different topics that he covered & found him to have a really good breadth of knowledge.
I stopped really reading his work 2-3 years ago because by then I had researched for myself most of the science, spirituality & had my own answers. Some of my views on how we create our reality I think are quite different to David's also.

I was drawn back to look at his latest information re Corey, disclosure etc in April because it happened to correlate with a couple of pieces of information that I already had. So I was interested to see how what info he & Corey had & whether it was relevant or not.


As far as David & copyrighting his version of information I don't personally have a problem about that & I don't have an issue with your perception of it either.

From my perspective I see that, yes, he may be presenting information that belongs to everyone & has been researched/written by many other people however I look at it as paying for his time.

So whatever conference, video etc he has made he has pulled together information from different sources, inserted images, made the intuitive connections & delivered it in his own style. He has made the information available to people who are perhaps time poor & don't have the time to do the research or have the knowhow for themselves. So perhaps the copyright from his POV could be more for preventing someone else copying his exact format, sequence of information & images that he has thought out & prepared? I don't know.

Tanta
11th May 2015, 11:39
Discussing people is walking on thin ice. So i will try not to break it.

Lets assume the intended purpose of his work is information sharing and evolution of consciousness.

I will be critical.

He tends to gather already known information and repackages it. He goes to point out the obvious (yet sometimes overlooked in general) and then adds to it with his elaborations (that often do not exactly require insider information), which he then chain relates to anything he possibly can (his past publications) - which can be helpful, but is almost always tied to a commercial offering.

If someone wants to pay for what he is selling, hey...it is their choice. You do not like something enough to buy it, then don't. He runs a business and as with any business its primary goal is to survive, strive for growth and possibly flourish. None of that and he can close down his website along with all its pay-per-view and free content.

He is good at describing, writing and telling things in a story format. It is a known fact the mind of a human animal is far more perceptive to that kind of information sharing. Aside from story telling elements free publications can also read like a marketing letter. There is a hype after hyper after hype and then bum - the new/past book/video which is just a must have to...etc Remember, it is a business.

As one reads his FREE (anything free is always heavily emphasized and to some extent exaggerated) publications it is apparent he "holds himself in high regard". If that is a part of his stage persona or not, i do not know. His stage persona does seem to had some training (as in how to be on stage, what not to do, how to address the public...etc) But it does send a message. This message is received/perceived differently and at times it can seem to be contradictory to the intended purpose of his work.

Question: is the amount of free content sufficient to meet the intended purpose of his information sharing or does one actually have to open up a wallet to get that and the free part essentially only serves as a teaser?

KosmicKat
11th May 2015, 12:36
I found DW's latest posting online quite disappointing after being an interested follower for some years. No major new facets to shed further light on the puzzle, but a vague encouragement that "the cabal is collapsing" and "disclosure will occur soon". Given that it was more than five years ago I was listening as a newcomer to his "Disclosure Endgame" broadcast predicting that "disclosure will occur soon", I am perhaps disillusioned.

IMO his strongest work remains his original investigations into the "Source Field", available gratis on his website.

Aianawa
11th May 2015, 12:40
Does not feel nice reading the above post.

Shadowself
11th May 2015, 13:56
Is there really any benefit in becoming personal & discussing a person?

From my point of view we all create the version of the seemingly outward person that we are seeing projected on the screen in front of us. We create and experience the version of them (another Self) that we are currently in resonance with via our own beliefs and perceptions.

So there are multiple versions of everyone including David, Corey, myself - the cheater, the liar, the friend, the guru, the leader, the whistleblower, the XYZ - choose your own label. As soon as you label someone or something you have created a judgement & collapsed the wave function into the version of them that you are choosing to experience them as. The trick is in realising if you are consciously choosing or are unknown beliefs doing the choosing of the version for you.

Surely it is the information / message which should be of most interest rather than the messenger. The information will either resonate, partially resonate or not resonate & again the way the information is perceived will be according to your own beliefs - conscious or subconscious.

Wave function?

This is Bohmian mechanics 101. Allow me to extend this thought to the mental aspect of the Universe and most importantly what the function of the Back reaction is in that aspect.

First the wave function:

Bohmian pilot wave

Bohmian mechanics, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum theory. In addition to a wavefunction on the space of all possible configurations, it also includes an actual configuration, even in situations where nobody observes it. The evolution over time of the configuration (that is, of the positions of all particles or the configuration of all fields) is defined by the wave function via a guiding equation. The evolution of the wavefunction over time is given by Schrödinger's equation.

The de Broglie–Bohm theory expresses in an explicit manner the fundamental non-locality of quantum physics. The velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the wavefunction, which depends on the whole configuration of the universe.

This theory is deterministic. Most (but not all) relativistic variants require a preferred frame. Variants which include spin and curved spaces are known. It can be modified to include quantum field theory. Bell's theorem was inspired by Bell's discovery of the work of David Bohm and his subsequent wondering if the obvious non-locality of the theory could be eliminated.

Now the Back Reaction:

People such as Josephson, Stapp, Penrose and others have suggested changes in quantum theory which allow for the possibility of "intent" or the like to bias quantum outcomes, but that all these authors operate using the Copenhagen picture in which there really is a "collapse" of the wavefunction. Some advocate a Bohmian picture in which both wave and particle are always real and there is no collapse. So how does mind enter the world? It must have been here from the start. An explicit dualism in which both mind and matter exist...

"In accord with Chalmer's idea, the wavefunction is intrinsically 'mental' capable of qualia."

...and suggests equating the guiding wave in Bohmian mechanics with the mental aspect of the universe, generally: the particles are "matter," "mind" the pilot-wave.

That might be uninteresting except for the next step:the "mental" aspect of the universe can be upgraded to life and consciousness by self-organization. This happens when a physical system uses its own nonlocality in its organization. In this case a feedback loop is created, as follows: the system configures itself so as to set up its own Bohmian pilot wave, which in turn directly affects its physical configuration which then affects its nonlocal pilot wave which affects the configuration, etc...

Normally in quantum mechanics this "back-action" is not taken into account. The wave guides the particles but the back-action of the particle onto the wave is not systematically calculated - of course, the back-reaction is physically real: the movement of the particle determines the initial conditions of the next round of calculation. But there is no systematic way to characterize such feedback. One reason that this works in practice is that for systems that are not self organizing the back-action may not exert any systematic effect.

This is an interesting way to utilize nonlocality despite Eberhard's proof that point-to-point signaling by the quantum connection is not in the cards! (If a physical system occupied a dynamical stability based on such a feedback loop then it would be a "nonlocal" physical system, without superluminal signals.)

Questions of consciousness aside, consideration of "back-action" as a dynamical fact nourishes a suspicion that linear quantum theory is fundamentally an approximation...

Thus: The quantum behavior of a system of electrons and the behavior of mind ie: 'mental' qualia...Equals:


Geometry acts on Matter/Energy telling it how to move,

while Matter/Energy has a reciprocal Back-Reaction on Geometry telling it how to bend.

Now: Apply the wave fucntion to "judgement" (as in the quoted statement) and what do you have?

A reciprocal Back-Reaction....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

jonsnow
11th May 2015, 18:59
I agree with Reality Creation

Thank you for your comments I request post be closed as there is no reason to get personal on David Wilcock thanks

Chester
11th May 2015, 19:08
Just remember, "if you teach" his information (the perennial philosophy) you are exposed to legal actions against you.

I am pointing out "content" as documented in a previous post.

Ria
11th May 2015, 19:33
If I was to recommend something or do the revers, is this not the same, just different sides of the same coin.
If I say someone is good, truthful.
If I say someone is bad, dishonest.
It is an oppionon , both are a comment on that person, both would be about that person. There by be personal.
"Is David Wilcox any Good"............is this not inviting an oppionon?
Which undoubtedly would be personal, good, bad or indifferent.
My point something positive is as personal as something negertive.
Yet the title invites an oppionon, yet posters request nothing personal, in essence say nothing, make no comment.
Something to think about :scrhd:

Church
11th May 2015, 19:43
The bottom line though is that an entire thread devoted to "is someone good or bad" is going to invite nothing more than subjective viewpoints, since there is no way to objectively quantify "goodness" vs "badness." So in the end, any readers of this thread are left knowing nothing further about David than they did before reading this thread... other than which members like him, which don't, and possibly which ones don't care either way.

That said, this thread will now be closed as per the OP's request. No harm, no foul. I appreciate the civility that was displayed in here. :tiphat: