To ξέρω το ξέρω...
Πάλι κάνω χαλάστρα..
Ε εγω θα τα πώ και ας με φάτε...ΠΟΙΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΗ ΘΕΩΡΗΣΗ ΡΕ ΠΑΙΔΙΑ?
ΠΟΙΟΙ "ΤΡΑΝΟΙ" ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΕΣ ΤΑΧΑ ΕΜΦΑΝΙΖΟΝΤΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΤΑΙΝΙΑ?????????!!!!!!!
Την ταινια εφτιαξαν οπαδοι της Τζ.Κ.ΝΑΙΤ ενος μεντιουμ που ισχυριζεται οτι εκπορευει ενα πνευμα ηλικιας 35.000 ετων που ονομαζεται Ραμθα που ήρθε απο την Ατλαντιδα.
Εσφαλμενα ισχυριζεται οτι "με την δυναμη του μυαλου μπορεις να αλλάξεις την πραγματικοτητα" και "οτι ο καθενας μπορει να γινει θεός".
Αυτοι οι οπαδοι ειναι οι Fred Allen Wolf, Dr Candice Pert, Amit Gotswami, John Haglin ,Joe Dispenza, and Miceal Ledwith.Ολοι μιλησαν στην σχολη της Night και πουλησαν βιβλια εκει.
Ο DAVID ALBERT ο μόνος σοβαρος επιστημονας που εμφανιστηκε στην ταινια οποιος αφου ειδε τη ταινια δηλωσε:
"Πέρασα μιση ωρα εξηγωντας τους οτι ΔΕΝ ΜΠΟΡΟΥΜΕ ΝΑ ΑΛΛΑΞΟΥΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΤΗΤΑ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΔΥΝΑΜΗ ΤΟΥ ΜΥΑΛΟΥ".Εκεινοι ¨"μαγειρεψαν" την συνεντευξη μου στην ταινια ωστε να εμφανιζεται οτι υποστηριζω ΑΚΡΙΒΩΣ ΤΟ ΑΝΤΙΘΕΤΟ.
ΕΝΔΕΙΚΤΙΚΟ REVIEW:
What the #$*! Do They Know?
Directed by Mark Vicente, Betsy Chasse, and William Arntz. Lord of the Wind Films, 2004.
Skeptical Inquirer/September 2004
Reviewed by Eric Scerri
People who espouse New Age philosophies are not generally known for their knowledge of modern science or their respect for critical thinking. Ironically enough, though, when it comes to quantum mechanics, everything seems to change, and they embrace it wholeheartedly. Given half a chance, many of them have something to say on the subject. But what New Agers really seem to like about quantum mechanics is all those alleged bizarre effects that they mistakenly believe can be appropriated to support their views on the nature of reality and the cosmos.
It therefore comes as no surprise that the makers of a recent New Age movie making its way across the country decided to inject a massive dose of quantum mechanics into the film's storyline. What the #$*! Do We Know!? is packing them in. Many people who have seen the movie are already claiming that it has changed their lives. I tried to go to one of the first screenings in Los Angeles and was turned away because it was sold out. So what is this movie that uses quantum mechanics to change people's lives?
Filmed largely in Portland, the movie is a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense dressed up as modern science. The film oscillates between interviews with a number of so-called experts (especially in physics) and a rather flimsy storyline involving a deaf woman, played by Marlee Matlin, who is being encouraged to wake up and see life's full potential. A young basketball player who has taken it upon himself to enlighten her repeatedly asks her how far down the rabbit hole she wants to go.
An examination of the film's pedigree helps explain its peculiar approach. The three directors are students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment in Yelm, Washington, which is run by New Age channeller J.Z. Knight. Knight claims to channel a 35,000-year-old warrior from ancient Lemuria named Ramtha (aka "The Enlightened One"), who dispenses wisdom through her. Ramtha's followers are said to include many people from the entertainment industry, such as actors Linda Evans, Don Johnson, Shirley MacLaine, and Richard Chamberlain. Knight herself appears in the film as one of the talking heads, and even holds forth on the subject of quantum mechanics.
Knight, who's been channeling her prehistoric alter ego since the 1970s, is paid as much as $1,500 by those who attend retreats held at her school.
I want to focus a little on the science, because this is where I believe the film is at its most disingenuous. Each of the physicists interviewed trots out a sound bite or two about how quantum mechanics supposedly shows that objects can be in two places at once, that matter is mostly empty space, or that all parts of the universe are deeply interconnected. The existence of a reality that's independent from the human mind as usually understood by scientists, or indeed by any rational person, is repeatedly assaulted to the point of being mocked. In addition, we are assured that when Columbus arrived on the shores of the Americas, the natives could not actually see his ships because it was beyond their paradigm of what could exist.
The fact that the science is being distorted and sensationalized here is not at all surprising. What puzzles me the most is that by making quantum mechanics the heart of the movie, the filmmakers have fallen prey to a crude form of reductionism which is usually regarded as the enemy of New Age ways of thinking. By focusing so much on basic physics, the filmmakers do not seem to realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot. One moment they talk about all kinds of emergent phenomena, such as global consciousness, that go far beyond the reductionist worldview. The next moment they seem to suggest that the physics of fundamental particles explains human behavior! Even if we grant that quantum mechanics tells us that particles can be at two places at once-which, of course, it does not-how can one then assume that such bizarre effects work their way right up to macroscopic dimensions with no attenuation in order to determine human behavior? As many scientists and philosophers now realize, even if matter is fundamentally governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, this does not entitle us to suppose that chemical and biological phenomena will follow those same forms of behavior. This is to say nothing of even larger leaps such as the question of whether human behavior is dictated by the laws of physics.
Reductionism works in principle but not in practice, even though all the branches of science are interrelated. If you want to perform a certain chemical reaction, you ask a chemist. You do not ask a quantum physicist, although, in many instances, the quantum physicists may have some very helpful things to say on the matter. If you want to study biological organisms, you do experiments on the biological scale instead of renting time at the local particle accelerator. The breakdown of strict reductionism has become common knowledge among scientists, and yet Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and Fred Alan Wolf, to mention just three from the film, have not caught up with this way of thinking about science. They prefer to remain within the old-fashioned paradigm that supposes that everything is indeed nothing but physics. This is not entirely surprising, given that each of them earns money writing books about popular physics laced with allusions to Eastern mysticism and the "really big questions in life." But now their knowledge of quantum mechanics is even allowing them to become movie stars and, better still, in a movie that is changing people's lives!
After dazzling the audience with dubious pronouncements from quantum physics, the storyline returns to Marlee Matlin's character, who is having an ever-increasing number of mind-expanding experiences, culminating in her realization that she no longer needs her prescription pills and that she can toss them into a lake. What a pity that the appreciation of modern science shown by New Agers is restricted to the more esoteric parts which are seen as supporting their worldviews. Meanwhile, something as beneficial (and mundane) as modern pharmacology is viewed with utter contempt to the point that people are effectively being told to throw away their prescription drugs and to cure themselves by waking up to the real meaning of life.
Eπίσης:
(με πληροφορίες για τους δηθεν επιστημονες που εμφανιζονται στη ταινια:)
What the Bleep Does Ramtha Know?
The following is information about the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" This movie is about quantum physics and everyday life and purports to offer some inspiration about how to live life consistent with the truth of science. I have enthusiastically supported this movie in the past, but no more. Why? I researched the movie and the main 'expert' commentator, a lady who channels "Ramatha" a 35,000 year old warrior who 'has the answers.' Ramtha is a mult-millionaire selling these answers and it got me thinking, and here's what I found. This is a very long document that collects views from many different sources. The first series of numbered items are my summary, the rest are taken from web sites. This is quite a bit of reading, but it presents are very clear point........decide for yourself.
1. Ramtha is, in the least case, a questionable character, none of the claims have been verified about Atlantis and the land of Lemuria, a 35,000 year old civilization from which the 'warrior' hails. JZ Knight, who claims to channel Ramtha, is a dyed-in-the-wool pantheist and mystic who lives on a 40 acre estate in Yelm, Washington, has thousands of students and is a multi-millionaire. Her organization, the "Ramtha School of Enlightenment" (RSE) is considered a cult and has bilked untold millions from followers in questionable investment schemes, the insight for which was provided by Ramtha himself. The estate features a French chateau, a "Quantum Bookstore", classrooms, outdoor recreation facilities, physical training programs. All of these are carefully overseen by Ramtha and costs thousands just to show up and participate.
A few facts about Ramtha and Bleep:
1.JZ Knight, real name Judith Darlene Hampton, first "met" Ramtha in 1977 in her kitchen, she had been "expirementing with the power of crystals". She was born March 16, 1946, in Roswell, New Mexico, the youngest of eight children, with an alchoholic father. From early in her life, the young JZ was convinced she had seen UFO's, even though those that grew up with her don't remember any of this. She graduated high school then went to a "business college" but dropped out due to financial difficulty, but was able to get jobs with good companies. Even then she was heavily into occult and mysticism before any of the Ramtha stuff came along, she was convinced on a personal level that she could see things that no one else could see. Her mother tells that the young JZ could see things before they happened, such as family deaths. In fact, a psychic once told her she would "live in the trees" and would have 'great influence." Little wonder Ramtha showed up later. She has been married at least five times. Her last name is from her last husband, who died of AIDS in the early 90's. Ramtha told him not to trust Western Medicine and use the breathing techniques of the RSE and he would be healed. He died, but he and Ramtha were already divorced, her having bilked him for much of the estate they had built together, but he was unable for health reasons to finish the suit.
a. Ramtha's main teaching (see below) is simply "you create your own reality" and "you are god." Also, the way that we learn to do this is to realize that god is within us and not anywhere else. Once we become gods, then we can truly make our own reality. Essentially...we have hidden powers within us. The famous Shirley Maclaine of "Out on a limb" fame, got her first taste of pantheism from the "pre-Ramtha" Knight and the actress helped spread Ramtha's popularity after he showed up. Knight's teachings in the early 70's were considered "New Age" before it hit big. In 1987, JZ Knight sued a German woman for copyright infringement because the German woman claimed to be channeling Ramtha too. Knight won a settlement of $800 and owns all rights to the ancient warrior. In 1992 Knight testified that 'channeled Jesus Christ' at a Christmas function.
2. The movie, coincidentally, was shot in Oregon and Washington....and it's world premiere was in a theatre in....where else...Yelm, Washington, Ramtha's 'home base.' Among all the experts in the movie, all but two (more later on this) are either students or teachers at RSE. Incidentally, Ramtha has more camera time than any of the other experts but has no qualifications of any kind other than a high school diploma. Many of the actors are also Ramtha students.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Let's look at this, millionaire teacher has followers who are movie producers, scientists, and have money (Arntz is a multimillionaire in his own right). They shoot a movie featuring scientists, Ramtha gets the most camera time talking about her teachings, the movie premieres in Ramtha's home town, other followers push to get screenings and it's a great promotion for Ramtha. It's like "Ramtha goes Hollywood." Doesn't this seem like what could have happened....all to Ramtha's credit, this was a slick plan! A movie with science, super-slick animations, an award winning actress, what a formula!
3. William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, and Mark Vicente directed, wrote, and produced the movie. All three are either teachers or devotees of Ramtha. Arntz, in an interview about "Bleep," had these things to say;
"When I was in ninth grade, I asked the question that many kids asked: if a kid is born in India and they die before they hear about Jesus Christ, do they fry forever in Hell?" says Arntz, who was raised a Lutheran. "The answer came back: 'Yes.' To this day, I remember I just went 'click' and turned the whole thing off, because I was just so disgusted."
"I just never wanted to hear the 'God' word ever again."
Incidentally, all but two of the 'experts' in the film have some current or past associations with the Ramtha School of Enlightment.
4. After the premiere of the movie there was tremendous interest (Bleep has grossed over 10 million to date), and, as we know, the film's popularity spread tremendously. But that is not the whole story....Ramtha's students, numbering up to 5,000, made a rush to arrange screenings and to, no surprise here, promote Ramtha's teachings, and to sell her books, CD's, and spread the Ramtha story. The question and answer sessions held in many locations, were not about quantum physics, but about Ramtha's teachings. Even the "Create my Day" segment of Dr. Joe Dispensa, the chiropractor, was not his teaching, but what he learned from Ramtha while a student at RSE, but more later on Dr. Dispensa. Ramtha has 60 employees including a marketing director devoted to the sales and production of his/her/ teachings.
5. Dr. David Albert, one of the experts in the film, and not in any way affiliated with Ramtha's school, Professor and Director of Philosophical Foundations of Physics, Columbia University, has gone on record repeatedly saying that his views were taken out of context and that the views expressed in the movie are not consistent with current research and accepted theory in academic physics. It is interesting that he gets the LEAST camera time despite the fact that he states that he spent five hours on camera trying to explain to the directors that the concepts of physics in the movie are not current, and not consistent. He is still included in the sequel, "Down the Rabbit Hole," however.
6. Dr. Joe Dispensa, the chiropractor in the movie who 'creates his day,' is a devoted pupil of Ramtha, and in fact, the 'create my day' teaching is not his, but what he learned from Ramtha, and has nothing to do with quantum physics. He learned other things from Ramtha too...like not to listen to Ramtha's financial advice. He has testified in court that he invested over $10,000 in an investment scheme that Ramtha suggested because "bad times are coming." and the investment would make them fabulously wealthy, it turned out to be a scam that even Ramtha believed. Others at RSE bought into this as well. It all went south and they all lost their money. Maybe Dispensa is trying to get some of his money back.
7. Film critic Roger Ebert, formerly of "Siskell and Ebert" fame, apparently familar with what was going on...called the film "An infommercial for Ramtha." The official bleep web-site responds to this, and the producers sent him a letter. Scroll down
to the bottom to read Ebert's comments about the movie, the producers, and a very exposing statement written
by a real, academic, particle physicist. The physicist says that none of the "experts" are people that are currently
doing research, or even important work, in physics.
8. The mention in the film, by Dr. Candice Pert, a famous enodcrinologist who isolated endorphin receptors, of the natives not seeing Columbus' ships, has absolutely no support. In fact, the reference is to "Spanish Clippers," but clipper ships were not even built until over one hundred years later, bad choice of words maybe. It still casts doubt on the veracity of such claims. There are parrallel claims that pygmy natives can't see photographs, that they only see blank paper. Go figure.
9. Dr. Masura Emoto - the segment of the film depicting the supposed influence of human thought on water. This is really compelling.....but full of holes. Here are few problems.....
a. The film doesn't mention that Dr. Emoto, as detailed in his book, froze the water in petri dishes to a temperature of -4 degress farenheit for 3 hours, you have to do this to get crystals in the first place, but the water has to be slightly thawed in order to see crystals with a microscope. Also, in the movie, the background of the negative and positive crystals show different background colors.
b. The bottles, prior to placement in the dishes, were labelled with negative or positive thoughts. Dr. Emoto does not mention if this is a 'blind' experiment, that is, whether he knew what crystals were from what bottle and it's negative or positive message.
c. This is the problem...there are hundreds of crystals in a single drop of water, and, like snowflakes (a solid crystaline structure that is frozen as well), no two are alike. It's very easy to pick the pretty ones for the positive thoughts and ugly ones from negative thoughts. Consequently, crystalline lattices in frozen water are infinitely variable and every collection has both well formed and bad formed. This is a mere 'emotionalization' of a purely natural phenomena. As an aside...a high school psychology class in Durango Colorado could not find any signifcant association between the message and the crystals, though they did find that the source of the water was important because water from specific places formed crystals that were similar in structure moreso than the message on the bottle.
d. Dr. Emoto sells his "blessed" water for $65 per bottle.
10. The reduction in crime in Washington D.C. based on meditation by Buddhist monks. The film shows a graph and claims a 23% reduction in crime. that "had" occurred by week eight. The graph is fine, it seems, but it is interpreted in a weird way. At week five, there was, in fact a roughly 23% increase in crime over the first five weeks, which then went back down to prior levels around week eight. So crime only decreased after spiking for several weeks. Yet the claim is that the meditating monks reduced crime, but they didn't truly reduce it and can only claim that when considering the spike, which is a normal statistical phenomena. Note also, this has not been tried in other cities, and the whole claim rests on one little graph. Again...go figure.
11. The "theologian" in the film, Dr. Michael Ledwith, was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1967, he later became "Monsignor Michael Ledwith" and was a professor at St Patrick's College, Maynooth, Ireland. He serves as the representative of the Christian view in the movie. The Bleep web site mentions this with the "WAS" in place. He is also a "master teacher" at Ramtha's school. So...go from being professor of a major Irish Seminary to teaching for Ramtha?? He was dismissed for charges of sexual relations with several students. There are tons of writen accounts on the internet, including Irish child abuse authority web sites.
The comments Dr. Ledwith makes about Christianity in the movie essentially trash the whole notion of 'organized religion.'
This is not surprising considering his past, and it is clear that he doesn't represent Christianity very well.
12. Fred Allen Wolf, Dr Candice Pert, Amit Gotswami, John Haglin ,Joe Dispenza, and Miceal Ledwith have all spoken at Ramtha's school, and sold books there.
At this point, I'd have to say that I'm skeptical for at least two reasons. The stuff above is enough to get me thinking, but that only shows me that there are some questionable goings-on.
First, even though these 'experts' are unquestionably credible in their respective fields, the views expressed in the movie seems to be such that they are not "doing science" in such a way that their professional credentials and research are what's at stake, nor the source of their discussions. They are not "being physicists," they are talking about some of the more esoteric implications of a branch of physics that actually only a few of them are qualified to comment on, and one of them who is has publicly claimed that he was not truthfully represented and that the general views in the film are not based on current research. Incidentally, I see Dr. Albert as being the most philosophically inclined since he deals specifically with philosophical problems of quantum physics, and he's the dissenter. It would have been better for the Chiropractor to do this, but not a philosopher and physicist.
These people aren't under the gun to teach straight physics....while they "might" be being sincere at moments, and there are compelling moments, it seems like something else is going on. If indeed Ramtha is at the bottom of all this, and it looks like he/she/it is, then we are left with a gloss of quantum indeterminacy with the same old "you have hidden powers inside you" and "create your own reality" in a new package. This is what it really looks like, but with an air of academic authenticity. I feel duped. Having studied philosophy of science and theology at the graduate level, I feel embarassed. As a philosopher, intellectual honesty is an incredibly important value, and I thought that's what was going on. I think differently now based on a larger view of the movie. The claims about conscioussness and matter in the movie aren't supported in the movie. The case of water crystals and meditating monks is not sufficient to support the views espoused in the film.
As a Christian, I felt, in the least case, that I needed to be tolerant of the looseness with which Christianity and God are talked about, in order to be open-minded. I do not feel, based on the views of the producers and writers, that they are trying to be open-minded, they are clearly set in new age pantheism and denounce traditional Christianity, so I no longer feel compelled to comply. Take it for what it's worth, it is my opinion that the movie is not about physics or consciousness, it's about Ramtha. At this point, the whole thing ceases to be interesting and becomes offensive.
What does Ramtha Teach?
From www.christiananswers.net
Here are some statements that Ramtha, "the spirit" speaking through medium J. Z. Knight has said, as reported by Douglas Mahr in his book Ramtha, Voyage to the New World (Ballantine, 1987):
Ramtha says that the Christian God is an "idiotic deity" (p. 219).
About man:
"You are God" (p. 61).
"God the Father is you" (p. 136).
"Everyone is what you call a psychic" (p. 139).
"Love yourself... live in the moment, to exalt all that you are" (p. 149).
About sin:
"There is no such thing as evil" (p. 60).
"For 2,000 years we have been called sinful creatures ... [but] we are equal with God or Christ" (pp. 180-81).
About salvation:
"Do not preach to this world.... The world doesn’t need saving—leave it alone" (p. 130)
"Relinquish guilt... do not live by rules, live by feelings. ... You are the Lord of Hosts, you are the Prince of Peace" (p. 149).
About eternal judgment:
"God has never judged you or anyone" (p. 62).
"No, there is no Hell and there is no devil" (p. 252).
About Satan and his demons:
"Devil? I looked far and wide for the creature.... I found him nowhere [but] I found him thriving in the hearts of frenzied entities in a fervor of madness to save the world from its sins.... That is where he is. [Do] you understand?" (pp. 252-53).
"The devil is not really evil... because he’s really God.... Who else would he be?" (p. 251).
RETURN TO MAIN PAGE
A Movie Critic Reviews the Movie
Not a Christian, was contacted by the movie producers after his review. Read his rather revealing remarks, yet he has
no other point than that the agenda of Ramtha is clearly behind the movie.
What the Bleep Do I Know?
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
I picked up the phone the other day to receive a call from the movie that won't die.
I'm talking about the $10 million smash-hit indie flick that people at parties keep telling me changed their lives. The movie that's consistently "back by popular demand" whenever I drop by revival theaters, in the futile hope that "The Blues Brothers" or something is playing, instead of "What The Bleep Do We Know," a film that tells us you can supposedly see "love particles" in water blessed by monks if you just stare close enough and open your mind.
"I'm calling from 'What The Bleep Do We Know,'" the voice on the line said. "I know you weren't a fan of the movie. . . ."
"Well, you know," I equivocated.
They wanted to send me a review copy.
Maybe fan or no-fan wasn't the issue. Basically I'd written an article revealing the secrets of "What The Bleep Do We Know" (on DVD March 15), a mix of documentary-style interviews and episodic B-grade slapstick, or at least at first glance. I watched it last year in a theater of San Franciscans, who made that "mm" sound heard wherever really good points are made. Starring Oscar winner Marlee Matlin, the movie purports to explore quantum physics at its most mind-melting: wormholes, meeting copies of yourself, and the absurdity of human life against that crazy backdrop.
But something seemed off about the on-screen "experts" who invited us into their living rooms, where they lectured us on subatomic physics, and why it proves that organized religion blows. By hour two the conversation had taken a turn into topics you won't hear about in Physics 1B. "I create my day," says a glassy-eyed man, explaining how quantum mechanics has given him the ability to live a richer inner life than those not-yet-enlightened types who are "addicted" to sex, pill-popping, and negative emotions. Oddest of all is the middle-aged blond woman with the mysterious accent, speaking confidently about how (among other things) subatomic particles can give you a boner.
"It only takes one fantasy for a man to have a hard-on," she reveals.
Turns out there were more psychics than physicists producing and starring in the film delivering these insights. Specifically: members of a doomsday cult centered upon the blond lady, who actually turns out to be JZ Knight, a channeler who claims to be speaking in the voice of Ramtha, a 35,000-year-old warrior king. In "Bleep," JZ Knight's voice sounds increasingly like Tia Carrerre's in "Kull the Conqueror" as Ramtha grips her soul. The accent comes and goes, maybe depending on Ramtha signal strength. Supposedly Ramtha's not from Atlantis but from a neighboring island, which has often been overlooked. Think of it as the ancient sunken city-state version of New Jersey.
Pyramids atop the fence of Knight's $2 million ranch in Yelm, Washington block the CIA mind control waves that Ramtha warns his flock of. At least three who've bought into this are treated on screen as experts, including a priest booted from the Catholic Church over molestation charges, a professional chiropractor, and someone's completely random grandma wearing a tie-dye.
In between these "experts" are campy antics where the filmmakers have ambitiously set out to take us to the absolute limits of quantum possibility. How? Early in the movie they decide on the only reliable strategy: to rip off "The Matrix." Standing in for Morpheus is a little black kid asking the main character "how far down the rabbit hole" she wants to go. (Wow, minorities are mystical!) And there is a chaotic wedding scene at the end that's just chock full of wacky. There are wacky old people. There is a groom caught shagging some other girl against a church window, demonstrating the degree to which humans are dominated by primitive emotions like lust.
Much as Neo uses his super-skills to see the universe as computer code, Marlee Matlin's character - it pains me to type this - realizes that humans see the world through a kind of sex-crazed Terminator-cam.
"SEEKING: FOX WHO WILL PUT OUT," the HornyCam reads on screen.
"SYSTEM CRASH," we see a bit later.
See: wacky.
Like the infamous anti-pot cheesefest "Reefer Madness," "Bleep" is a series of goofy antics in the service of propaganda, only substituting critical thinking for reefers. Copping ideas from the dust jackets of Stephen Hawking books, it sets out to persuade the audience to abandon their world view for Ramtha's where (like Living Colour said) nothing is real. Meaning, of course, that you might as well shell out $1,000 to hear someone channel a 35,000-year-old warrior god.
The movie has ridden to popularity not only on a surge in New Age belief but a massive tidal wave of magical thinking in our super-hip era. The film's message, "create your own reality," has become popular among people like Burning Man attendees flipping glow sticks, as well as Department of Defense deputy secretaries visualizing Al Qaeda-Iraq alliances.
"Bleep" seems to have boosted the Ramtha School Of Enlightenment's prestige. This past Thursday, for some reason, Bobby Kennedy Jr. of the famous Democrat clan was speaking at Ramtha's School Of Enlightenment. As of press time the environmentalist crusader hadn't returned my phone calls as to why he was the highlight of an exclusive engagement at the high-security compound, where only Ramtha students with ID cards were allowed in.
But after I called up and got CultNews.com's Rick Ross on the case, the local Olympian reported that the Kennedy heir took our phone calls in stride. "Someone who doesn't like you very much told me I was speaking at a cult," he said to laughter from the Ramthites.
While it's hard to say if RFK, Jr. enjoyed "Bleep," one man who did is Michael Harris, a Portland, Oregon yoga master who reports directly to famous guru Bikram. Harris told me in September that the flick gives you the inside deal on what's really going on "at the cellular level" during yoga. (Not sure if the equation also factors in the tiny butterfly or Japanese kanji tattoo that women in yoga classes are mandated to have under the Low-Slung Jeans Spiritual Tattoo Act Of 1998.)
"Cellular, like biology class cellular?" I asked Harris.
That's right, he said.
Dude.
So maybe it was time to reconsider the movie, which is seeming less like a fluke and more like a milestone in the history of logical thinking. It was recently playing in Washington, D.C.'s trendy Dupont Circle, where the local City Paper described it as a "mind****." Another booster was a medical researcher who almost became my roommate. Seemed like we were hitting it off until I told him about "Bleep" being a front for Ramtha, who has been known to declare that AIDS is God's way of "getting rid of" gayness.
"You can't ever criticize that movie if my girlfriend visits," the guy with the Ph.D told me. "It helped her get through a really hard time."
Never heard from him again.
I thought maybe I missed something. So last night I surrendered my reality-based community credentials and gave in to the magic of "What The Bleep Do We Know" for the second time.
I watched the narrator claim (complete with cheesy reenactment by some white guy) that Indians, never having heard of clipper ships in 1492, literally couldn't see Columbus's ships when they first appeared off the shore.
A friend I was watching it with attested to this principle. "Dude, when I came over to your house and saw your Mini Mac for the first time," he said of the compact new Apple computer, "I couldn't see it. I'd only seen the G5, so it was like there was a void there."
I told him to knock it off and stop making fun of the movie. He didn't. He pointed out that the special effects of the movie resemble a shaving commercial, with blue light flaring around Matlin as she goes around smiling and infecting the quantum field. Then there are the animations prancing around the HornyCam scenes, an orgy of CG cartoon characters resembling Grimace from the old McDonald's ads. They're supposed to be the emotions we're "addicted" to at a cellular level. They make us relive "the same jobs, the same relationships" over and over again and become (as Matlin does in the film's epic conclusion) hung up on thigh cellulite.
"If we can be addicted to heroin," one expert tells us in between horny scenes poking fun at lust, "we can be addicted to an emotion." With so much randy sex, "Bleep" can't possibly be a fundamentalist religious attack on critical thinking, can it? The Ramtha followers who created the movie boast that their movie cuts through corporate brainwashing and only appeals to free thinkers.
"Bleep" reminded me of the movie "Donnie Darko," in which Patrick Swayze plays a guru whose "Attitudinal Beliefs" textbook is foisted on Jake Gyllenhall's Donnie and classmates. They're forced to view everything in life on a scale between Love and Fear. Those who refuse, like Donnie, are told they can only be Anger Prisoners, blind to reason.
The guru in "Darko" meets his downfall. But what he should have done is, release a documentary with major indie buzz, little CG guys running around, and hip-hop loops in the background with a sample going, "time to get wise, t-t-time to get wise," as in "Bleep." He could have called it "Anger Prisoners: The Motion Picture." People would have eaten it up.
A Roger Ebert Quote about the Movie
The movie critic Roger Ebert mentions "What the Bleep" in another review and summarizes his views. The actual review of the movie
was more positive, but he admits here in this quote that he might not have gotten the whole picture. Apparently, now he does.
......."What the #$*! Do We Know," a recent "documentary" in which one of the "expert physicists" has been unmasked as a chiropractor, and the filmmakers are all followers of Ramtha, a 35,000-year-old spirit guide from Atlantis. Because nobody knows $#!t about quantum physics, this doc (documentary) actually got respectful reviews from gullible critics like me, because it made about as much sense as most of what I've read on the subject.
Roger Eberts "Movie Answer Man" Submissions.
Q. I've read your review of "What the #$*! Do We Know?," a film that attempts to explain some of the more interesting aspects of quantum physics. These explanations are given by what you describe as "experts" in the field.
I am a professor of physics at the University of Massachusetts, doing research in the field of experimental particle physics. I glanced at the cast names and did not recognize any of them as leading names in the field of theoretical particle physics or cosmology. I even searched for their names using the search engine of the High Energy Physics database, which references authors of papers appearing in the leading journals of the field. Nothing came up.
I suspect that the persons appearing in the film are not physicists who have a rigorous training in the very mathematical and non-metaphysical theory of quantum mechanics. If this is indeed the case, then I warn you that the content of the film may have little or nothing to do with the actual theory of quantum mechanics.
Carlo Dallapiccola, Amherst, Mass.
A. Since the expert who made the most sense to me was JZ Knight, who claims to be channeling Ramtha, a 35,000-year-old mystical sage from the lost continent of Atlantis, this does not come as a shock.
_________________________
Q. While the film "What the #$*! Do We Know!?" parades itself as a tell-all about quantum physics, it turns out that it's actually a 111-minute infomercial for ... that's right, the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. In fact, the three filmmakers, [William] Arntz, [Betsy] Chasse and [Mark] Vicente, are all devotees of Ramtha.
There's little to no accurate science in the film, and, as a physicist pointed out recently in your Answer Man column, the individuals who are quoted are pretty far from qualified experts on the field of quantum mechanics. Case in point: One of the persons expounding on causality and quantum physics (Dispenza) is a chiropractor. The film's sole purpose appears to be to promote the ideology of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. A quick browse through their Web site will clearly demonstrate that the film's pseudoscientific nonsense comes straight from the teachings of the RSE.
Rubin Safaya, Edina, Minn.
A. Several other readers also unmasked the documentary as a hoax. I knew there had to be something fishy when the expert who made the most sense was channeling a 35,000-year-old seer from Atlantis.
________________________
Ebert Gets a Letter from the Producers of "What the Bleep do We know"
A. I also received a sharply worded letter from Mark Vicente, Betsy Chasse and William Arntz, the co-directors, defending the stature of their experts and the integrity of the film.
"What the #$*@!" has turned into a sleeper hit around the country, drawing repeat audiences and generating strong word of mouth. I felt a certain affection for the film, although as my original review indicated, the "movie that attempts to explain quantum physics in terms anyone can understand. It succeeds, up to a point. I understood every single term. Only the explanation eluded me."
Among the experts on the screen, I wrote, "only one seemed to make perfect sense to me. This was a pretty, plumpish blond woman with clear blue eyes, who looked the camera straight in the eye, seemed wise and sane, and said that although the questions might be physical, the answers were likely to be metaphysical. Since we can't by definition understand life and the world, we might as well choose a useful way of pretending to."
This woman, I later learned, was the psychic JZ Knight, who channels a 35,000-year-old mystical sage from the lost continent of Atlantis. Still later, a letter to the Answer Man from an actual physicist, Rubin Safaya, informed me: "The individuals who are quoted are pretty far from qualified experts on the field of quantum mechanics."
The film is what it is, a group of people trying to explain the nature of reality. The confusion comes if you think they are discussing physics, when in fact they are discussing metaphysics. There is nothing wrong with having a belief system and using it to fashion your worldview; the error comes in ascribing scientific truth to what is by definition a matter of faith.
The argument between Darwinians and Creationists is similar: Darwinians use science, Creationists use faith. "Creationist science" is laughed at by reputable scientists because it tries to use its easily refuted "science" to explain a belief that grows from and depends entirely on faith. By the same token, although the Ramtha School may indeed have valuable insights into the nature of reality, it is misleading to present them as science.
Excerpt from "What Is Enlightment?" by Tom Huston
Okay, this magazine is definitely "out there" compared to a Christian world view, but even
this editor doesn't think much of the implications of the movie and gives and excellent description of the
the problems with the claims of movie about quantum physics and consciousness.
In other words, the idea is that when your consciousness is not perceiving something—like this magazine, or the room you're sitting in, or even other people—then that “thing” loses its apparent solidity and coherence and dissipates back into an indeterminate cloud of potential quantum states until you open your eyes and perceive it again, whereupon it instantly collapses back into actuality. Needless to say, this is hard for most of us to wrap our minds around, reminiscent of the old tree-falling-in-the-forest metaphysical mind-twister. And that's probably why many physicists have dismissed it entirely—including Albert Einstein, who famously remarked, “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.”
The implication inherent in both of these versions of quantum mysticism is that each of us has the potential to affect the world directly, at its most fundamental level, through the power of our own consciousness. If we understand that the universe is a quantum sea of possibilities, then we can learn to bring certain more desirable possibilities into existence via nothing more than our conscious intention—no PhD in physics required. “And therefore, literally,” says Goswami in What the Bleep, appearing before a CGI background of wavy blue quantum energy fields, “I create my own reality.”
It's a fascinating idea. However, it seems that the majority of quantum physicists see no need for the injection of human consciousness into the mathematical formalisms that form the basis of their science. As Ken Wilber pointed out twenty years ago, even the founding fathers of quantum physics/mechanics—Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Sir Arthur Eddington, et al.—who were all self-proclaimed mystics, strongly rejected the notion that mysticism and physics were describing the same realm. The attempt to unify them is, in the words of Planck, “founded on a misunderstanding, or, more precisely, on a confusion of the images of religion with scientific statements. Needless to say, the result makes no sense at all.” Eddington was even more explicit: “We should suspect an intention to reduce God to a system of differential equations. That fiasco at any rate must be avoided. However much the ramifications of physics may be extended by further scientific discovery, they cannot from their very nature [impinge upon] the background in which they have their being.”
And there's the crux of the confusion. Quantum physics deals with the abstract, symbolic analysis of the physical world—space, time, matter, and energy—even down to the subtlest level, the quantum vacuum. Mysticism deals with the direct apprehension of the transcendent Source of all those things. The former is a mathematical system involving intensive intellectual study, and the latter is a spiritual discipline involving the transcendence of the intellectual mind altogether. It's apparently only a very loose interpretation of physics, and a looser interpretation of mysticism, that allows for their surprising convergence—and opens the door to the even wilder idea that by drinking some of this quantum mystical brew, you'll be able to create your own reality.
“I wake up in the morning and I consciously create my day the way I want it to happen,” says Dispenza, a longtime student of Ramtha, during one of his many appearances in What the Bleep. In the film, after Amanda experiences her radical breakthrough into a positive new world, most of the interviewees chime in to explain the mechanics behind such a transformation—all presenting variations on the theme of creating one's ideal reality through the power of thought and intention. However, the degree to which “creating your reality” is taken literally varies widely among the interviewees, from Stanford professor William Tiller's idea that, upon realizing the interconnectedness of all things, we should take responsibility for our effects on the world, to Dispenza's notion of literally “consciously designing our destiny” to suit our own desires by “infecting the quantum field.” It's this latter use of quantum–physical reality creation that begs questioning—if only because it represents, again, that peculiar confluence of physics and mysticism, and appears to also contradict the very nature of mysticism itself. Mystical practice is traditionally aimed toward the mind-shattering revelation that there is actually only one reality and one self, and this revelation is said to liberate the individual from his or her attachment to personal desires. So if we're pursuing the manifestation of our desires by consciously manipulating the quantum field, and thereby attempting to re-create reality itself in our own image, how spiritual can that be, really?
In any case, it is understandable that so many people would feel a need to, as Wilber has put it, “rest their souls on the findings of physics.” In our postmodern and scientific age, what is the most obvious direction for a spiritually seeking soul to turn in search of Truth (with a capital T) after traditional mythic religion has been seen through and left behind? Why, it's toward science, surely, with its claim to universal truth and its mathematical certainty to ten decimal places about the inner logic of space and time. Having our spiritual beliefs backed by science lends them some degree of legitimacy, however tenuous the connection. Moreover, it seems to make those beliefs more easily defensible against the preying guards of scientific authority—that is, the skeptics and scientific materialists of our era—both when encountering such adversaries in the world at large and when the same materialist doubts arise in our own minds.
So maybe the widespread popularity of quantum mysticism, and its latest offspring, What the Bleep, is pointing not just to our cultural propensity to be enamored by the amazing insights and innovations of science but to our innate fear of scientific materialism, which seeks, by definition, to squelch soul or spirit wherever it finds it. That we should even feel the need to overcome the doubt of the scientific materialist worldview indicates how all-pervasive it actually is, and how thoroughly steeped in it most of us are. In fact, the very need to base our belief in the transcendental Divine on the findings of science seems indicative of the strange spiritual desert in which we currently find ourselves, and in which humanity possibly has been lost since modern science first arose to trump religion centuries ago. Having left the world of myth, dogma, and superstition behind, we leapt into the wider embrace of science, logic, and rationality. But the scientific paradigm also has its limits, and despite the insistence of those who claim otherwise, perhaps what humanity needs now is a higher worldview: one that understands the miracles of science to be merely the modern expression of an ever-evolving Mystery, which only reveals—each time it is glimpsed—how little we really do know.
Review from "NTHPOSITION" By Ian Simmons
NTHPOSITION is an online magazine that features articles and commentary on a wide range of contemporary
issues. This source does not espouse a Christian view. But again...read the reviewers very convincing
debunking of the science behind the movie.
Following a trend that started back in the 70s with The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu-Li Masters, What the Bleep Do We Know? examines how quantum physics reflects and supports mystical insights into the oneness of the Universe through the story of a deaf photographer resolving an existential crisis. This has been a massive success in the US, prompting unprecedented numbers of people to buy DVD copies for their friends so they can share in the film’s life-changing qualities.
So, does quantum mechanics have a mystical message for us that can help us understand the spiritual side of the Universe? Well, if it does, What the Bleep? fails to deliver it; it combines vacuous New Age mysticism with junk science through extraordinarily ham-fisted film making and thoroughly nasty, low-budget CGI. It fails cinematically, as 75% of the screen-time comprises static cameras pointing at talking heads delivering sermons about how weird the universe is and how quantum mechanics underlines this in a mystical way. Its CGI fails, as it seems to have been done on a smaller budget than the monsters in a Xena episode by someone heavily influenced by early 90s Orb CD covers (it could only have been worse if they’d been OD'ing on Roger Dean), which makes for an unpleasant visual experience. It also fails spiritually because it fails to attach its vaporous meanderings to any coherent belief system: exactly which mystic tradition does quantum physics reinforce? All of them? Any of them? Some of them? And in what way? No, we just get New Age blather about one-ness, the Universe being created by our minds, and a rather terrifying blonde woman channelling a 35,000-year-old being called Ramtha, plus a couple of dodgy researchers from Maharishi Uni. It seems to be aimed at people espousing a kind of wet-brained, low-wattage pantheism with all the difficult spiritual exercises removed. As someone once said, I believe of Krishnamurthi, “Very deep on the surface, but really shallow underneath”.
So, if it is spiritually bankrupt, how does What the Bleep’s science hold up? Well, this is where it gets really entertaining. It is almost impossible to know where to start. Wolfgang Pauli had a phrase he used to use to students who presented work that revealed fundamental misunderstandings: “It’s not even wrong”. Well, the science of What the Bleep is beyond not even wrong: it is completely unrecognisable as science. Instead, the term “quantum physics” is constantly used, in a series of blatant non-sequiturs, as a mantra to provide a kind of pseudo-reinforcement to mystic drivel spouted by people who wouldn’t know an equation if it bit the psoriasis off their elbow.
Quantum physics is a purely mathematical system which can tell you the probability of subatomic events happening reasonably exactly; but as most people can’t do the advanced maths necessary to understand what it’s all about, it has to have a thin skin of linguistic metaphor drawn over it to make it comprehensible to laymen. But metaphor-skins have their drawbacks: they are the map, not the territory. The verbal description of quantum theory sounds pretty far out and is expressed in language that is sometimes deliberately derived from mysticism (e.g the eight-fold way), so a proportion of those encountering it are tempted to see it in a mystical light and extrapolate furiously from it into all sorts of rarefied realms, which What the Bleep does in spades. You can’t do that. You have to extrapolate in the maths, then describe it in words. No one in What the Bleep ever backs up their pronouncements with the math; when someone asserts that “quantum theory really does show that the universe can be contained in a mustard seed”, they need to produce an equation that demonstrates this, but don’t, unsurprisingly.
To make their quantum/mystic interaction work, it is necessary to set up a link between quantum functions at a sub-atomic level and human consciousness on a macroscopic scale, which they largely do by wilfully misunderstanding the observer effect, the idea in quantum physics that the outcome of any quantum interaction remains in a state of indeterminacy until “observed”, at which point the wave function collapses and the interaction resolves itself down to a definitive solution. What the Bleep treats this as if it needs a consciousness to interact with it, which is not the case, then extrapolates from this to the idea that consciousness can actively influence reality, and provides some priceless examples of “research” to back this up. We get a run-through of the ‘Maharishi Effect’, by which concerted transcendental meditation (TM) by a team of 4,000 Maharishi followers supposedly lowered the Washington DC crime rate by 25% for a month. Except the murder rate increased during the period and there has never been a clarification of the issue of 25% - compared to what? It’s not like you can run a control of the same month in the same city without the TM. The experiment was not double blind, all the “independent” reviewers were Maharishi followers and it has never, ever been independently replicated. Even worse, they go for the work of the appropriately-named Masura Emoto, who caused water to form regular crystals under a microscope by taping nice words to their containers, and irregular jagged crystals when he used nasty words. I assume he froze the water to get the crystals, though this is not stated, but water doesn’t crystalise unless you freeze it, and if you look at how he did this work, you once again find a metholodological shambles. The experiment wasn’t double blind (Emoto knew which words were on which bottles), he biased the data heavily by searching his samples for crystals that matched the words, there were no controls, there’s been no replication, and all sorts of other possible tests have not been carried out. Does this work whatever the language used? Does the word have to be spelled right? Would “hat” produce crystals as jagged as “hate” if the experimenter meant to write “hate” and indeed, would “love” produce jagged crystals if the experimenter was thinking really negative thoughts while they wrote it? Needless to say there have been no successful independent replications. It is also difficult to see how this could be a quantum effect, even if it was real, as it is clearly on a macroscopic scale.
In fact, the science doesn’t have to be quantum physics to be buggered senseless in the street by What the Bleep - they extend this courtesy to pretty much all disciplines. There are assertions that individual cells are conscious (evidence?) and a glorious claim that West Indians who encountered Columbus literally could not see his ships as their reality didn’t contain the concept of “ship”. Not only do they seem to have made the story up out of the whole cloth (I mean - how would they know?), but by that logic, iPods would have been totally invisible to us when they arrived. Do you usually find new gadgets invisible when they first hit the shops? Thought not.
This idea derives from a complete misunderstanding of the experiences of life-long blind people who have had their sight restored as adults. Often they can’t “see” an object until they have felt it, after which they can visualise it. This is due to their having become overwhelmingly reliant on a different sensory system and having to mediate new knowledge through that initially until they become more confident with their new-found sight. This doesn’t happen to us just because we see something utterly new.
These are just some of the most prominent distortions and misunderstandings. There are dozens more throughout; in fact, pretty much any time anyone opens their mouth... And when someone doesn’t say something flaky, it gets edited so they seem to. Prof David Albert, of Columbia University, is apparently very pissed off about this, as his statement of profound opposition to the linking of quantum physics and consciousness now sounds like a ringing affirmation.
I am left wondering what the point of all this is. To make money? To attract people to a cult? I doubt it is either, as it was independently made and financed and only hit the big time through luck, and it makes so little connection to any belief system that it’d be pretty poor recruiting material. I think the truth is more worrying: they actually think this egregious dog-toss is profound and meaningful and really want to share it, and that is most frightening of all. The extent of the mental attenuation this implies is enough to give you pause.
Review from "Skeptico"
What the (Bleep) Were They Thinking?
I decided to see “What The (Bleep) Do We Know!?” (sic!). I had avoided this film, as it looked like what Murray Gell-Mann calls quantum flapdoodle - distortions of quantum physics to support a mystical viewpoint. But the “what the bleep” meme is growing, so I decided I should see it for myself. Now I’ve seen it I can confirm that it does distort quantum physics to support a mystical viewpoint. But it is much more than that. Much worse. Hilariously so, in fact.
This post is rather long, but please read it to the end – there is a surprise there that will astonish you, I promise. But I should start with the science. Or, I should say:
The “science”
The premise of the film is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality. The conclusion is we literally create reality with our thoughts.
Unfortunately the theory of quantum mechanics does not say this. The film makers are confusing the theory of quantum mechanics with an interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is an explanation to help understand what might be going on, but it is not part of the theory because it is not falsifiable: it cannot be tested in such a way that, if it were false, it would fail the test (without falsifying the whole of quantum mechanics, and therefore all the other interpretations too).
To falsify this interpretation you would have to see what would happen without a conscious observer monitoring the experiment. But that’s Catch-22: you need a conscious observer monitoring the experiment to see what happens. You can’t look at the experiment without looking at it so no one can ever know if this interpretation is true. Even if it were true, extrapolating to “we literally create reality by out thoughts” is applying reductionism to an absurd level.
Don’t believe me? You don’t have to because David Albert, the professor from the Columbia University physics department who was featured in the film, is quoted in Salon.com saying:
I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed.
(My bold.)
The ironic thing is that the film makers tell us quantum mechanics is oh-so-mysterious and can’t be explained - and then they explain it. I am reminded of Richard Feynman’s famous quote, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". These film makers think they understand quantum mechanics. They don’t, but that doesn’t stop them from making a film explaining it. But it’s just a consciousness-of-the-gaps explanation: we can’t explain it so it must be consciousness.
Any one of the many interpretations could be correct. Or none of them might be correct, and the correct explanation is something not yet thought of. Quantum mechanics is not telling us this is the way the universe necessarily is.
Baaaad examples
So they have the theory wrong, but they must have some good examples, right? Wrong. They have three bad examples. Appallingly bad, actually.
The first was the claim that when Columbus arrived in the West Indies, the natives were literally unable to see his ships. Why? Because they had never seen ships before, so ships did not exist in their reality.
I had to rewind the film to make sure I hadn’t missed the part where they said this was just a fable. But they were stating it as fact. This idea is just too dumb to be considered seriously. Even if true, how could anyone verify it? I have searched the web for the source of this story to no avail, and conclude the film makers just made it up.
The second example was of the supposed “Maharishi Effect.” John Hagelin of the Maharishi University, described how in 1993, violent crime in Washington D.C. was reduced over a two month period, by 4000 people practicing transcendental meditation (TM).
There were many problems with this experiment. One was that the murder rate rose during the period in question. Another was that Hagelin’s report stated violent crime had been reduced by 18% (in the film he says 25%), but reduced compared with what? How did he know what the crime rate would have been without the TM? It was discovered later that all the members of the “independent scientific review board” that scrutinized the project were followers of the Maharishi. The study was pseudoscience: no double blinding, the reviewers were not independent, and the experiment has never been independently replicated. Hagelin deservedly won an Ig Nobel Prize in 1994 for this outstanding piece of work.
The third example was the work of Masura Emoto, who tapes words to bottles of water. The water is chilled and forms into crystals descriptive of the words used. For example, if the word “love” is taped to a bottle, beautiful crystals form; if the words “you make me sick” are used, ugly images appear.
What the film makers didn’t say is that Emoto knows the word used, and looks for a crystal that matches that word (biased data selection). To demonstrate a real effect, Emoto would need to be blind to the word used. James Randi has said that if Emoto could perform this experiment double-blinded, it would qualify for the million dollar prize. (He has never applied.) Such a protocol would show there is no correlation between the words taped to a bottle and the crystals formed within. These experiments have not been performed to a scientific protocol and have never been independently replicated.
Pert scam
The next segment was about neuro-peptides, how they are created in the brain, and regulate other cells in the body. This was presented as another example of how the human brain (consciousness), creates reality. None of this would be new to anyone who has read Candace Pert’s “Molecules of Emotion”. Pert is a talented scientist who went woo woo many years ago for reasons I don’t have time to go into here. Suffice to say she has made many dubious claims, including this in the film:
Each cell has a consciousness, particularly if we define consciousness as the point of view of an observer.
I think what she saying is that when one cell interacts with another, it fulfills the role of the “observer” in quantum mechanics. Well OK, but by that definition my toaster is conscious. It’s such a general definition of consciousness as to be meaningless: consciousness has to include some degree of self-awareness. There is no evidence I’ve heard of that individual cells are conscious.
This was followed by someone claiming he literally creates his day with his thoughts, plus some feel-good drivel about god and self that almost put me to sleep. At the end, the main character in the film throws away her prescription meds because, since she creates her own reality, she doesn’t need them. (Don’t try this at home.) And that was it.
Channel No. 5
One thing that puzzled me was who were all the talking heads? I recognized a couple, but who was the bizarre guy who claimed he creates his day just by thinking about it, and who was the heavy-set blonde woman in the boxy red suit making the weird pronouncements in a funny accent? Normally in a documentary, the experts are introduced when they first appear. But here they introduced them after the end of the film. I was amused to see the guy who creates his own day, was a chiropractor. But when I found out the identity of the blonde woman, my eyes nearly popped out.
They are stating as a fact, that one of the people you have been listening to for the previous 90 minutes, a main authority for the information being presented, is a 35,000 year old warrior spirit from Atlantis, being channeled by this Tacoma housewife turned cult leader. The woman pictured is JZ Knight, but you are not listening to JZ Knight. You are literally listening to Ramtha. There were people who saw this film and didn’t say, “That’s just a woman putting on a funny accent”. Scary, huh?
At this point the film lost any remaining pretence of being based on any kind of science or facts.
I did a little digging on Ramtha:
Ramtha is a 35,000 year-old spirit-warrior who appeared in J.Z. Knight’s kitchen in Tacoma, Washington in 1977. Knight claims that she is Ramtha’s channel. She also owns the copyright to Ramtha and conducts sessions in which she pretends to go into a trance and speaks Hollywood’s version of Elizabethan English in a guttural, husky voice. She has thousands of followers and has made millions of dollars performing as Ramtha at seminars ($1,000 a crack) and at her Ramtha School of Enlightenment, and from the sales of tapes, books, and accessories (Clark and Gallo 1993). She must have hypnotic powers. Searching for self-fulfillment, otherwise normal people obey her command to spend hours blindfolded in a cold, muddy, doorless maze.
Upon further investigation I find the films’ producers, writers, directors, and a number of the featured “experts” are members of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. The film is a propaganda piece for a cult.
What the (Bleep) Were They Thinking?
I can answer that now. They were thinking that if they made a film using the word “quantum” a lot, plus plenty of feel-good drivel they would (a) make a ton of money (not that they are short of the stuff), and (b) gain more recruits to their loony-tunes cult. This is probably one of the few things they got right.
Ας κανουμε μια σουμα:
Ποιοι εμφανιζ
Διαγωνισμός για την ταινία: "Τι στο ...μπιιιπ... ξέρουμε;" - "What the bleep do we know!?"
Απεστάλη: 24/02/2006, 01:39:58
Τους ρώτησε πως πάει και του είπαν πως εάν δε μαζέψει κόσμο, δε θα την προβάλουν για πολύ καιρό.
)
