Skeptic: Examining Extraordinary Claims and Promoting Science Skeptic: Examining Extraordinary Claims and Promoting Science

top navigation:

Friday, October 1st, 2004 | ISSN 1556-5696

eSkeptic: the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society

Share this eSkeptic with friends online. Subscribe | Donate | Watch Lectures | Shop


Bleep Poster

The following is John Olmsted’s review of What the #$*! Do We Know?, a film by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, Mark Vicente, starring Marlee Matlin. John Olmsted MA, Med. is an adjunct instructor in psychology at Portland State University in Portland Oregon where he teaches a course in paranormal psychology. He is mental health therapist specializing in issues of learning, attention and the brain. ctandjo@hotmail.com


Ramtha’s School of Quantum Flapdoodle

a film review by John Olmsted

What do you get when you combine bits of quantum physics, brain science and the channeled prophecies of a 35,000 year old god/warrior named Ramtha? The film, What the #$*! Do We Know?, is a fantasy docudrama cult hit that has found national distribution and is playing to full houses across the country.

The film is the latest effort by religious, mystical, and New Age gurus such as Deepak Chopra to cloak their views in the mantel of science. Physicist Victor Stenger coined the term “Quantum metaphysics” where “today’s cosmic mind has been repackaged by an appeal to twentieth century science for its authority.” The cosmic mind in this case is that of J. Z. Knight, who claims to channel a 35,000-year old god/warrior named Ramtha. Because Ramtha instructed her to demand a packet of gold from all who seek his wisdom, she has reaped millions over the past quarter century. The films’ producers, writers, directors, and a number of the stars are members of her Ramtha School of Enlightenment in Washington.

Quantum physics and neuroscience are complex and controversial topics. The film discusses them in twenty-second sound bites mixed with cutting edge graphics. The effect is a blend of riveted attention and confusion that puts the critical mind to sleep, softening up the viewer to ideas that begin with human potential and end with walking on water.

The film opens with writer Fred Alan Wolfe imploring us to “Get into the mystery!” We just have to decide “How far down the rabbit hole do we want to go?” The central premise of the film is that there is no objective reality. The world is nothing more than observer effects. Amit Goswami, an emeritus professor of physics from the University of Oregon, states: “The material world around us is nothing but possible movements of consciousness. I am choosing moment by moment my experience. Heisenberg said atoms are not things, only tendencies.” Other speakers describe matter as “like a thought, concentrated bits of information.”

With a bit of candor Wolfe states that quantum physics is “subject to a range of debatable hypotheses.” At the center of the debate is how to interpret the fact that at the subatomic level the act of observing electrons has an effect on their properties. Some forms of measurement pick up wave-like effects while others pick up particle effects. If the form of observation has such an effect on reality can we say there is an objective reality at all? In the famous debates between Einstein and Niels Bohr over the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum effects, Einstein was never won over to the notion of the absence of objective reality, stating:

I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurement. That is, an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think the moon is still there even if I am not looking at it looking at it.

The idea that consciousness creates reality is at the core of most religions. Objective reality is the unfolding of the spiritual world on the plane of physical existence. In the past it was consciousness of god or gods doing their work on earth in a rich variety of religious mythology. In New Age interpretations you are the god of your own individual world.

Additional bits and pieces of quantum theory are presented in the film, including: superposition theories, direction of time, Boehm’s implicate order, information theory, and others. Most viewers have no time, let alone the science background knowledge, to evaluate the validity of such claims. Quantum theory is used to punctuate religious and political sound bites, such as this one from psychologist Jeffrey Satinov: “Materialism strips people of responsibility, quantum physics puts it squarely in your lap.”

Along with talking heads and computer graphics is a loose drama of a woman in the midst of depression played by actress Marlee Matlin. She’s a photographer who hates herself, gains no pleasure from the world, and seems to be having trouble with her medications.

A chiropractor named Joe Dispenza diagnoses her problems with Ramtha’s version of neuroscience. Dispenza notes that in brain imaging parts of the visual cortex light up during both mental imagery tasks and visual perception. From this he draws the absurd conclusion that we don’t know the difference between what is real and what we imagine. Many different mental functions share cortical areas to carry out the complexity of their tasks. Thought and speech both utilize language areas of the brain. Visions during dreaming that use the visual cortex get reality tested upon waking. There are people who have great difficulty seeing the difference between the real and the imagined. They are suffering from psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia, or they have ingested large amounts of drugs or alcohol. If Dispenza is right that we live in an imagined world not grounded in reality, testing his theory on your drive home would lead to a carnage of competing versions of where the road begins and ends.

Matlin’s depression raises problems with the New Age myth that the mind is a like a big department store where we are free to choose any thought or feeling we want. Why would we choose to be depressed? Why don’t we just snap out of it and think happier thoughts?

A major finding of neuroscience is that the conscious “free” mind arises out of powerful unconscious processes. Joseph Ledoux at New York University has shown that the limbic system produces a fear response before we are even aware of seeing the frightful image, like a snake in the grass. Patterns of emotional and cognitive responses to the world are laid down in a complex dialectic of inherited biology, early childhood experiences, and current functioning in the world. How this all produces consciousness is one of the most challenging questions facing brain scientists. The late Francis Crick spent thirty years on the question.

Dispenza tells us that the answer is quite simple. Since we can’t stop feeling and thinking, and an addiction is “something we cannot stop,” then bad thoughts are just a problem of addiction. All we need is Ramtha’s recovery program. Noted cellular researcher Candice Pert appears for a valuable discussion of hormones, peptides, and neurotransmitters in the brain. Since discovering opiate receptors she has since drifted into New Age nonsense. If cells are over stimulated by neurotransmitters they adjust though a process called down regulation. Dispenza tells us that this is the cause of lifelong problems, since the down regulation is passed on in cell division. In a forum on the film this past spring, I had to point out to him that brain cells, unlike other cells in the body, do not divide.

Addictive processes and habits of thought and feeling are both carried out by chemical signaling between neurons. The major difference is that in addiction reward circuits in the brain are hijacked and distorted by rapid elevation of chemicals such as dopamine and endorphins due to drugs injected into the body. There is growing evidence that genes play a role in determining a person’s vulnerability to addiction.

Matlin lifts out of her depression after many drinks and a romantic encounter at a Polish wedding—perhaps the mind really is influenced by the body and the power of interpersonal relations. During her hangover the next morning she is lifted into a state of bliss when reminded of the power of thought as shown by the work of Masura Emoto.

Emoto claims to have proven that thoughts are so powerful they can change the structure of water. His “experiments” consist of taping written words to glasses of water. The next day beautiful crystals appear on jars with words like “love.” We are not told that these are actually ice crystals. In his book, Messages from Water, Emoto claims that water can understand every language in the world, and all their emotional and metaphoric nuances, by picking up on the linguistic vibrations. Water tells us that classical music is good and heavy metal is bad. Water can educate us as to whether religious and political figures are good or bad people. Water is so perceptive that, when played a recording of Elvis singing “Heartbreak Hotel,” the water crystal split into two crystals in sympathy.

Another “proof” of the power of thought presented in the film is the so-called “Maharishi Effect.” In 1993, 4,000 meditators gathered in Washington, D.C. under the direction of physicist John Hagelin. Hagelin predicted in advance that the meditations would drive down the violent crime rate in the city by 25 percent that summer. Despite the fact that the murder rate actually rose, Hagelin announced a year later that his analysis proved that the violent crime rate fell just as he had predicted. In his recent book he states that the meditators “function essentially as a ‘washing machine’ for the entire society.”

As with Emoto’s work, there has been no replication by other scientists, no control groups, and no publications in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals to confirm the Maharishi Effect. The end of the film meanders into speculation about god. Knight tells us that Ramtha has arrived to free you from the gods who determine good and evil and punish you in the process. You can have it anyway you want. You are god. You can return to those wonderful days of childhood when the world really seemed centered around you and was created by your fantasies.

In April of this year I invited one of the film’s directors, William Arntz, along with one of his science consultants, Joe Dispenza, to Portland State University. To put the question of free will and responsibility to the test I put up a photo of a child with Downs Syndrome. I asked if this child was free to create any reality he wanted. Was this child responsible for his condition, I queried? Arnzt responded that in fact he is to blame for his disorder—he is paying for transgressions in a previous life. This is the same doctrine of reincarnation and karma that justified the caste system in India. The same logic blames the patient for their cancer.

What begins as promises of freedom of thought soon evolves into demands for correct thought and behavior. As Satinov says in the film: “People ought to be instructed to make different choices.” The source of the correct ideas is the prophet. The promised payoff for adherence to the dogma is freedom from the fears of death, disease, and misery. The fact that these are deep fears that we are all vulnerable to, sets the stage for rampant exploitation and abuse by charlatans and cults. As J. Z. Knight asks, “Have you ever stopped for a moment to look at yourself through the eyes of the ultimate observer?”

26 Comments »

26 Comments

  1. Craig George says:

    I’ve just met with someone who has been at the Ramtha school of teaching for many years, I think he said 22, which is my entire lifespan. At any rate, it’s clearly a hoax, and I would like to know how to best arm myself to refute his claims. (We’re in what you might call a religous debating society.) Other than the lack of evidence to support the historical and scientific claims of Ms. Knight, what’s another big bomb I can throw at him in a few short sentences? Great article, by the way, from my unselfish side that doesn’t just ask for things ;)

    • Doctor Sidethink Hp.D says:

      i read the previous comment at about 7:40 on the 13 of June 2009.. it is very weird but not surprising coincidence that someone is surfing the same thing and actually sends in a comment.
      I got here from reading Suimi Goswandi ( techno-geek and popular blogger) and his collection of video clips of Cheers and Fraiser,

      Snerd rules!!

    • Chris Ha says:

      hi Craig,
      it is rather difficult to change set minds. Not everybody thinks in an organized way. These people even embrace the -ahum- ‘opening’ of their minds. Look at how long thinkers know that whole parts of the bible have been tampered with and how many people still hold the bible is the complete word of God… or how people claim alternative therapies to cancer are effective based on several anecdotal examples.

      I think showing the real crimerates helps. I think doing experiments with words on crystalizing water helps. But remember, they do not WANT to change their minds. Search: cognitive dissonance.

      • Daniel Pinasco says:

        *
        Maybe, if you are a kind of monk, living alone in some hill, away from “modern civilization”, that kind of thinking may be usefull: You can “se as the observer”, “change reality with your thaughts”, and so on, because of the simple fact that, if you use all your time “meditating” your brain will be like “bored” of being in the same state all the time, with no other distractions besides some landscaping; so, the thaughts of that “thinker” -or however you want to call him(her)- will be turning little by little psychotic, starting with the adquisition of delussions, feelings of greatnes, and so on.

        But, when this thinker says: “Now it´s the time to translade this ideas i have earned to the entire world” is when the idea looks attactive to the stressed people in big cities: “I can be a superior being”, “i can control my surroundings”, Etc. But, as it´s obvious, the Cognitive dissonance, as Chris said up here, appears. They have a lot of thaughts, activities, concerns, priorities, Etc, Etc. So it´s almost impossible to continue thinking yn that psychotic way -UNLESS the psychotics, as they don´t need any special preparation in spirituality, quantum fisics, Etc.-

        * My first language is Spanish, i haven´t studied for a long term english classes; thanks for your comprehension.

    • Gene Debs IV says:

      Craig,

      Enter such debate with data (e.g., crime-rate stats, as suggested) in hope of serving those in your audience who are given to reasoned analysis instead of snake-oil, or further honing your debate skills. But your time may be best spent on other endeavors. “New age” fundamentalists, like their monotheistic brethren, have little use for reasoned analysis; they traffic in the dogma of hunches and the perceived superiority of their feelings.

    • Probability Amplitude says:

      I recommend reading the definitive work on quantum electrodynamics, QED by Richard Feynman. It is an easy read for laypersons and explains QED conceptually without the use of mathematics. You can also view many of Feynman’s lectures on Youtube for free, or check out “Project Tuva”, a series of Feynman lectures presented by Microsoft. Feynman’s lectures are still used today (April 2012) in universities around the world to explain QED.

  2. Nathan Phillips says:

    I watched this film, and I was amazed at how incredibly boring they could make rew age swill. With all of the special affects and talk about unlimited possibilities, I would hope for something approaching the entertainment level of a Lewis Carrol story. Instead I was treated to the thinking water and tissues responding at the cellular and DNA levels to thought. Thanks for pointing out how this new-age movement succeeds at inheriting the worst of Hindu theology as well as some of the preachy, and less useful aspects of western religion.

  3. Jason Newcomb says:

    First let me say that this is by no means a defense of this film. While it contained some interesting ideas, the whole “ramtha” element really damaged any shred of credibility. But this review is awful.

    David Bohm’s name is corrupted, as is Fred Alan Wolf’s. The author also merely identifies Wolf as a writer, rather than acknowledging that he has a PhD in theoretical physics.

    The quote from Einstein contains a blatant typo.

    The content is also distorted.

    The author states, “From this he draws the absurd conclusion that we don’t know the difference between what is real and what we imagine.” This is a ridiculous out of context misrepresentation. What the guy was saying is that our physiological systems do not always distinguish a difference between an imagined event and an actual event. You can prove it to yourself right now by vividly imagining that you are squeezing a lemon into your mouth. Look at that, you’re salivating already. Of course I cannot be held responsible for conclusions the chiropractor draws from that.

    I’m out of time for a play by play, but…

    what a creepy thing to do with some poor kid with down syndrome. Jeesh. Perhaps I should display a picture of John Olmsted at my next talk and asked a physicist to explain to me how determinism and evolution produced such an insensitive jerk.

  4. Marian Mach says:

    For Jason:

    Just a short comment. Yes, it is a mistake (and perhaps a bit of manipulation) if John Olmsted just calls Wolf a “writer” instead of mentioning his actual scientific credentials.

    On the other hand, John did not actually bring the poor kid to show him to the above mentioned charlatans. He merely showed them the photo of the kid. And that is quite a difference to me.

    He was not being an insensitive jerk – quite to the contrary, it was the two of them with their stupid, truly insensitive reply…

  5. Andreas says:

    Five years later and the article is still relevant.

    To review a metaphysical film through the lens of entertainment science is just wrong. This review is written with more personal views and biased opinions than the language of science allows. And why is that? Could it be because the language of science is not a human language but a language to understand human objectivenss? For as soon as you use words you have entered the world of subjectiveness and no matter how hard you try you will not get around it.

    It would be interesting, for once, if someone from the science community would regard what other people are saying without first labeling them. It is clear that this review first of all labels the film as New-Age. An old word with very negative association if you come from a science community. If any persons words, theories and insight just could be regarded as what they are then an interesting discussion could arise. But this, and all other scientific view points of metaphysical theories are all labeled as something that has an inherant negative meaning.

    One should not call it science if it isn’t strictly science but anyone should be allowed to say that a theory is drawn from scientific studies. For even scientific conclusions end up being incorrect at some point.

    • gerry says:

      It is “New Age”. It doesn’t matter if the term is old or not, or whether you like the connotations of that term or not; No other term sums it up better (other than perhaps “absurd flapdoodle”).

  6. God says:

    what is amazing is that All of you are un-happy with your own lives that you must Pass judgement on others.

    • Gene Debs IV says:

      Dear God,

      The author of the review did not “pass judgment on others” but instead criticized and refuted (or “passed judgment” upon) weak hypotheses passed off as established theories or fact. Rather it’s your assertion that “all of you are unhappy with your own lives,” that smacks of mean-spirited judgment. Then again, that’s what God does best.

  7. Bobjective says:

    Hate to do this but this sceptic, with an obvious dislike of ‘new age quackery’, bases his arguments on criticism not supported by contradictory evidence or tests, uses confusing jargon when compared to the documentary, and then at the end of these ‘wordy’ paragraphs slips in a statement like he has debunked something, when all he really has done was not listen. For example the addiction of peptides in the cells – the author gives a one sided challenge saying that he stated to a person on the documentary at a meeting, that brain cells don’t divide – that’s the end of the paragraph. Well, she was talking about peptide or chemical dependence different parts of the body, not just the brain. As in the theory put forth by the documentary, cells remember traumas etc and communicate with the brain (in a way we don’t fully understand), then the brain ‘tells’ the cells what chemical reaction to take via peptides. If you want to criticize an article scientifically you have to work within their framework to debunk it, or provide scientific proof to the contrary.

    Your review, as it addresses the nature of atoms near the top, does not provide a contradictory theory – it assumes the reader will generate their own opposition – and goes on to link the reasonable idea that “Heisenberg said atoms are not things, only tendencies” (as we once found out with electrons) with religious and spiritual beliefs a paragraph later; again relying on the reader’s prepositions to “know” how the universe works.

    Please, don’t start quoting the Einstein known to us by the scientific community – as if you looked into his belief system, which mainstream science likes to say it’s based on, you would see that he had a firm belief in god, and talked about a consciousness that we could tap into that was of “higher” intelligence and provided him with great insight.

    As I am trying to address aspects of the scientific merit of this review by John Olmsted, I will not choose to make the media that he uses to convey his message a main point, like he did concerning the documentary. However, I will point out that the visual display of faces and images in his review also has a “subjective” value upon the reader. In other words, people feel more emotionally attached to faces, and thus this triggers a greater emotional response and serves to break up our attempts at logical processing of his written word.

    As for the cancer rallying- cry against taking responsibility for your own health (as this presentation of quantum physics would like you to do) – I’m sure if you did the research, you would find that those that took responsibility for their own emotions and mental well being had a much better rate of survival then those to resigned to giving their personal power of recovery over to their allopathic doctors. I also believe that this review is dipped in fears…of the new and unknown, so the arguments about the documentary using fear – well, are irrelevant, and hopefully both fears can be ignored and the documentary watched from a “non-fearful point of view“. The mentioning of this author using a child with Down’s syndrome, and him being a, “mental health therapist specializing in issues of learning, attention and the brain”, I could see why a documentary like this would upset him, just as it would any of us with an autistic child. However, an emotional response is an emotional response, and is still triggered by past memory, or association, no matter the credentials that are worn on one’s chest.

    The 2nd “review” is made by a guy named Skeptico – of course he has a inclination in which he would see the film. As does a writer for the site http://www.skeptic.com – I guess this kind of “criticism” comes with the field of being a sceptic, just as being an open minded quantum physicist would leave you open to attacks that seem to be more emotional or belief system – based than on current scientific responses. Admittedly, I do not have time to go into the second critical article, as I have to attend to my own needs; but I will leave you with this objective question – what is the nature of a critical review if it is written from the mind state of one who has prior claim to being a sceptic?

    I am afraid that my review of the limited scientific evidence that Olmsted provided is, in nature, lacking. I don’t recall Ramtha’s recovery program was never mentioned as being the answer, the authors of the documentary were merely calling for a broader perspective of reality -something that has always, and naturally, met with resistance.

  8. Alan Minikel says:

    I found this film streaming on a site filled with documentaries and I never knew much about it. I was only aware of the vague premise proposed by it’s title.
    Once I arrived at the section where they use little black boxes to record how some meditators changed the ph of something or other with their minds I immediately came to Skeptic, whose written publication I’ve been reading on and off for nearly a decade, to see what they have to say about it.
    After reading the review and getting an insight into the direction soon to be taken in the film, as I’d paused it at the point where they talk about tagging water with love, my only motivation for watching the rest of this film is my own compulsion to see films from start to finish, no matter what a load they are stuffing in the seat of my pants. Another reason to watch the rest is that I feel I ought to at least understand the arguments of the other side. But I’ve already heard it a million times. I get it.
    Thanks to this review I have reclaimed nearly an hour of my life from the woo woo of new age pseudo-science before it was ever stolen from me.

  9. Barb says:

    And what was that notion that the American natives didn’t see the European ships? At times in my life I’ve seen things I didn’t comprehend and didn’t have words for, but photons still bounced off of them and I noticed something, even if I couldn’t explain or describe it.

  10. JOE says:

    MJB SEMINARS in Australia has organised a cruise on the Oasis of the Seas 2012 and has thrown Joe Dispenza, Dr Demartini, Jack Canfield and Mitch J Behan, in as a bonus, as Speakers to Enlighten and educate you all, so you can ascend the spiritual planes and vibrate at a higher frequency, attract success, wealth etc, into your life.
    Maybe it would be cheaper to sit on top of the washing machine while it spindries?That should make all the celestial (descended) spirits vibrate right back up to where ever the Bleep they came from! :)

  11. John says:

    The spirituality group I am involved in is a theme group of Alcoholics Anonymous. These are intelligent middle-age and older adults looking for meaning in their lives. Someone brought this movie to study over many weeks. No-one bothered to Google it. I did after the first meeting and found the debunking in many places. I pointed it out to several members of the group and still they continue on. It’s an amazing experiment for me to watch all these people waste their time.

    Another way to describe the reason for this movie is as if two salesmen are working a car dealership lot. One is openly the salesman; the other is pretending to be a customer. The pretend customer casually meets real customers in the lot and discusses his thoughts about the cars and how good they are and at a great price. He softens up the real customer and pretends to be interested in the exact same car as the real customer. The real customer rushes to the salesman to get that great deal before someone else snaps it up. This movie is like that. It takes many apparently unconnected experts who reach the same conclusion that this is truth. Then the viewer can purchase the books, tapes, courses, seminars, etc. — because you need this truth in your life right now.

  12. Bwilson says:

    What the bleep do I know? Like I know that I have two hands, I know that thoughts have power and can be a determining factor in outcomes. I know that placebos often work better than the “real” thing. I know that a thought can radically and quickly change a mood. Why not think positive thoughts…such as that dis-ease can be healed by the use of thoughts? What’s the alternative to positive thinking…thinking that in what COULD be an infinite universe there are possibly infinite possibilities? The alternative is close-minded, negative, limited, skeptical thinking.

  13. AnonPhenom says:

    ” Why not think positive thoughts…such as that dis-ease can be healed by the use of thoughts? ”
    Nice hypothesis. Now go out and prove it by collecting data from experiments that can be replicated by others. Welcome to the world of science.

    Olmsted,
    Thanks for the review. I have no particular background in quantum theory (I’m a community pharmacist) just saw this movie by streaming it on Netflix, thought it OK for the first few minutes before the pseudo-science bable started, then spent the rest of the movie trying dope out which group produced this turdblossom. TM? L.Ron Inc.? No. Someone I’ve never heard of before, Ramtha. Next time I must bring my bag o’gold.

  14. William D. Nothem says:

    By coincidence, last night I was working on a chapter of a book I’m writing. The name of the chapter is “The Reality of Reality”. Although I didn’t mention the film, I stated that some scientists are straying beyond their proper realm. We do not create our own reality. We have our own experiences. Reality is real. But our realities are only experiences of experiences. Just because we have different experiences doesn’t mean that we each have our own reality. Yes, the experiences are real. Experiences are part of true reality. But we don’t create those experiences. We didn’t even create ourselves. So the fact that we were born with the ability to shape our experiences doesn’t mean that we are ultimately responsible for the experiences we create. The important thing, in any case, is to not lose the fact that there IS A REALITY. Reality includes all that ever was or will be. Reality does not change! If we lose sight of the reality of reality, all will turn to mush. There will be no more arguements or debates…just “Hey, if it works for you to believe that, cool!” So, hey, if you want to believe the world is flat, whatever… But the world is round. And just because we can’t explain why subatomic particles pop in and out of existence doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands and say that reality is created by our minds! As Paul McCartney sang, “There will be an answer…let it be.”

  15. John says:

    LOL, I like how the the author of this article stated Fred Alan Wolfe was a writer? He may-be a writer BUT he is also a world renowned Physicist. This is also true for JOhn Hagelin < Whom by the way is a brilliant man. ATHEIST, for the millionth time! you don't have the monopoly on Science. Is there proof of a Universal Intelligence? No, but there is a hell of alot more evidence to support the possibility than the road you Atheist take. How intellectually lazy to suggest the Universe JUST is and we are here Just because.

    Scientist, of an Atheist persuasion stated just before 2010 Quantum Computation couldn't take place in the mind, or in other animal life ect. Now we know Quantum Computation is occurring in Plant Life (Photosynthesis)… And now in the Microtubularies of the Brain as provided by Sir Roger Penrose and Hameroff's Orch-Or hypothesis ( of course there is much more that needs to be investigated and discovered).

    Point being, These are all different view points than traditional Scientific enquiry and Science is being very hypocritical, ignorant and arrogant ( all unjustly) to these new insights in understanding the fundamental fabric of existence.

    • John says:

      John,

      Do you always bloviate so much? Example?

      Is being “very hypocritical, ignorant and arrogant” ever just?

      “Just” wondering with my open, scientific mind.

      John

    • mors says:

      Hameroff is another fringe scientist. His theories are completely unjustified and without evidence. He should just let real neuroscientists understand how the brain works… And in that regard, neuroscience trounces on everything people like Fred Alan Wolf say, that the mind it external to the body. We have 200 years of literature and experimental data to demonstrate what part of the brain does what. Saying the mind (or soul or spirit) are external to the body is like going back to geocentrism.

  16. Routb3d says:

    I saw the movie.. The outlook shown in these movies has helped me a lot.. Right or Wrong doesn’t really matter.

    Isaiah

  17. Donneperth says:

    What does it really matter, all these views and opinions.
    What is important is that we treat each other with respect, for we are gods in human form. And that we treat each other with compassion for we are gods in human form.

    Personally I havent watched more than 30-40 mins of the movie as I found it boring and amateurish. I dont like the way quantum physics has been hijacked by elements of the New Age movement to justify the teachings of their particular cult or their way of perceiving reality. Twenty years ago or so, ‘hologram’ was the New Age buzz word, now its ‘quantum’. Next it will be….? Interesting to read that people connected with ‘Ramtha’ were behind it. ‘We are all gods, we all create our own reality. Now, give me your money’.
    (Note: Many, one would hope, of the Atlanteans have since reincarnated many, many times in the last thirty five thousand years and have progress accordingly. So why follow this particular ‘warrior’ who seems stuck in the past? People are strange.

get eSkeptic
our free newsletter

Science in your inbox every Wednesday!


eSkeptic is our free email newsletter, delivered once a week. In it, you’ll receive: fascinating articles, announcements, podcasts, book reviews, and more…

Popular Articles
on skeptic.com

Here are the articles that people have been sharing over the last few days.

Carbon Comic

Carbon Comic (by Kyle Sanders)

Carbon Comic, which appears in Skeptic magazine, is created by Kyle Sanders: a pilot and founder of Little Rock, Arkansas’ Skeptics in The Pub. He is also a cartoonist who authors Carbon Dating: a skeptical comic strip about science, pseudoscience, and relationships. It can be found at carboncomic.com.

Help the
Skeptics Society
at no cost to you!

Planning on shopping at Amazon? By clicking on our Amazon affiliate link, which will open the Amazon Store in your Internet browser, the Skeptics Society will receive a small commission on your purchase. Your prices for all products remain the same, yet you’ll provide essential financial support for the work of the nonprofit Skeptics Society.

amazon.com

See our affiliate links page for Amazon.ca, Amazon.de, Amazon.co.uk, iTunes, and Barnes & Noble links.

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Do you know someone who has had a mind altering experience? If so, you know how compelling they can be. They are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

Reality Check

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future

The battles over evolution, climate change, childhood vaccinations, and the causes of AIDS, alternative medicine, oil shortages, population growth, and the place of science in our country—all are reaching a fevered pitch. Many people and institutions have exerted enormous efforts to misrepresent or flatly deny demonstrable scientific reality to protect their nonscientific ideology, their power, or their bottom line…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Things You Should Know About Alternative Medicine

Top 10 Things You Should Know About Alternative Medicine

Topics include: chiropractic, the placebo effect, homeopathy, acupuncture, and the questionable benefits of organic food, detoxification, and ‘natural’ remedies.

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

Copyright © 1992–2014 Skeptic and its contributors. For general enquiries regarding the Skeptics Society or Skeptic magazine, email skepticssociety@skeptic.com or call 1-626-794-3119. Website-related matters: webmaster@skeptic.com. Enquiries about online store orders: orders@skeptic.com. To update your subscription address: subscriptions@skeptic.com.
See our Contact Information page for more details. This website uses Google Analytics, Google AdWords, and AddThis tracking software.
Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE