What the Bleep Documentaries

RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
What the Bleep Documentaries

I don't know if this was discussed on here previously. I have found the "What the bleep" movies very interesting. The obviously go against traditional religious beliefs and provide physicial explanations for psychological theories. There is a sense of spirituality to them, which they do acknowledge. I wanted to get the take of others on these. Personally, I have always thought of some type of energy force being a more practical explanation for things.

 

Thanks

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I despise the

I despise the "documentary". It is little more than a mocking of the rigorous institution of quantum mechanicians by postulating them as a group of magicians and woo-wooism promoters. It promotes ridiculous beliefs which no neuroscientist would endorse (the idiotic ten percent myth). It generally misconstrues quantum theory and makes a mockery of the scientific process. It utterly torques with the profession of quantum mechanicians to make it sound as if they are discovering some sort of magical energy and other nonsense I would expect from Homeopathics, when in actuality quantum law is a set of statistical equations used to describe the probabilty functions of subatomic particles, not magic or any such nonsense.

Also the terms "energy" and "force" are repeatdly abused as though they were referring to some sort of mystical silliness. "Force" is merely a vector term in physics for the transfer of energy between material bodies, as in electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the force of gravity, or, in macroscopic kinematics, momentum = Force x mass, or Force = mass x acceleration. Force is not a word which we can toss around as though it referred to mysticism and magic. Nor is the word "energy" which is often ubiquitously treated as the staple word of woo-wooism when the pracitiones wish to be deliberatly vague and confusing, it is especially invoked with the word "quantum" alot. YOu will find that these New Age silliness practioners use the words "quantum", "energy" and "force" alot, despite having not the faintest fucking idea what it means. Energy in physics is merely a scalar field quantity of the amount of quantifiable work which may be extracted from a system. It means nothing on the subject of magic or any such nonsense.

The documentary and the New Age nonsense it propogates insults me as a scientist.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I found "What the Bleep Do

I found "What the Bleep Do We Know..." to be total crap and I was not alone in this analysis:

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Thanks. I know it has that

Thanks. I know it has that new age feel to it, which bothered me alot. I don't reacall them talking about the ten percent rule. Some of the ideas they had about neuroplasticity jived with what we see in psychology and what I have read in neuroscience. However, I think they took it to far to the point of mysticism and changing the world through positive thinking. We know that it is not positive thinking that helps people change, but more rational thinking. I have to tell this to my clients all the time. Who is that weird lady on there??

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Optimism

 

I flipped on the TV and caught the portion that was describing how emotions are just chemical reactions triggered by the brain. I immediately lost interest, though, when they started with that whole spiel about "If you just think about something you want and tell yourself every day that you will get it, the law of attraction will make it come true! Seriously!"

 

"Hmmm..." says I. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
RationalSchema wrote:

RationalSchema wrote:
Who is that weird lady on there??

The weirdest lady on there was J.Z. Knight AKA Ramtha, so I think that must be who you are asking about.

http://skepdic.com/ramtha.html

 

I wonder why my above link is not working. 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
WOW! That really puts a huge

WOW! That really puts a huge dent into their credibility. How can individuals who are trained in these sciences associate with this person?? Sounds like they have been blinded by their beliefs.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


Pathofreason
Superfan
Pathofreason's picture
Posts: 320
Joined: 2006-12-23
User is offlineOffline
I have seen it

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

I flipped on the TV and caught the portion that was describing how emotions are just chemical reactions triggered by the brain. I immediately lost interest, though, when they started with that whole spiel about "If you just think about something you want and tell yourself every day that you will get it, the law of attraction will make it come true! Seriously!"

 

"Hmmm..." says I. 

 

I watched it a few times and although I disagree with most of what they say, But Emotions are chemical reactions in the brain. What other explaination for Emotions can there be?

Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com

www.pathofreason.com

Check it out


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Pathofreason

Pathofreason wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:

 

I flipped on the TV and caught the portion that was describing how emotions are just chemical reactions triggered by the brain. I immediately lost interest, though, when they started with that whole spiel about "If you just think about something you want and tell yourself every day that you will get it, the law of attraction will make it come true! Seriously!"

 

"Hmmm..." says I.

 

I watched it a few times and although I disagree with most of what they say, But Emotions are chemical reactions in the brain. What other explaination for Emotions can there be?

 

That was the one part of the whole documentary that I didn't have much of a serious objection to, but I'm not expert on brains. DG could maybe say if there was anything wrong with it.

I was interested in what they were specifically saying about the brain's use of those chemicals though. For example, they were saying that some people can become addicted to certain chemicals and not realize it, and then it gave them example of the glutton, the pervert, the whiney chick, the ditzy/happy chick, and so on.

My main interest in the subject though was having an understanding of exactly how and why the body feels the things it does. There was one point where one of the talkers said to close your eyes and imagine someone very attractive and notice the changes it has on your body, thus proving that you can trigger the release of the chemicals with the brain, even voluntarily to an extent.

It made me wonder about the religious people who claim that they believe in god because they "feel" god. If we are only able to feel emotions--including love, happiness, and euphoria---due to chemicals and receptors that are a natural part of our biology, what does this say about the ability to "feel" god? Is god a chemical? Does god manipulate the body's chemicals? How does he do that? If our understanding of love is attributed to something we feel in a perfectly natural way, then what does it mean to say that God is love? And other such questions.

But like I said, it wasn't long before I realized this video was on a fast train to crazy town. I actually haven't thought about this thing in a while... hmm... good to talk about it.

*edit*

Oh, and I did watch another more credible documentary on TED that explained that some emotions are all chemical while others--especially love--are a combination of chemical emotions and basic drives. (evolutionary benefits).

*/edit* 

If anyone has any better understanding as to how emotions work, I'd like to know them. What The Bleep is not a good source, obviously.

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Pathofreason
Superfan
Pathofreason's picture
Posts: 320
Joined: 2006-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Me too!

Yeah man I would love if they covered this topic from a scientific point of view. Possibly to show the difference between chemicals and basic behaviors. I myself am unfamiliar with topics such at that.

Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com

www.pathofreason.com

Check it out


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I know that two of the

I know that two of the scientists involved--Andrew Newberg, whom I hope to study with in the near future, being one--that claim that their words were twisted and edited in such a way that they publically came out against the movie.

That movie took kernels of truth and buried them under piles of shit. 


ArianeB
ArianeB's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-09-24
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote:That

Archeopteryx wrote:

That was the one part of the whole documentary that I didn't have much of a serious objection to, but I'm not expert on brains. DG could maybe say if there was anything wrong with it.

I was interested in what they were specifically saying about the brain's use of those chemicals though. For example, they were saying that some people can become addicted to certain chemicals and not realize it, and then it gave them example of the glutton, the pervert, the whiney chick, the ditzy/happy chick, and so on.

My main interest in the subject though was having an understanding of exactly how and why the body feels the things it does. There was one point where one of the talkers said to close your eyes and imagine someone very attractive and notice the changes it has on your body, thus proving that you can trigger the release of the chemicals with the brain, even voluntarily to an extent.

It made me wonder about the religious people who claim that they believe in god because they "feel" god. If we are only able to feel emotions--including love, happiness, and euphoria---due to chemicals and receptors that are a natural part of our biology, what does this say about the ability to "feel" god? Is god a chemical? Does god manipulate the body's chemicals? How does he do that? If our understanding of love is attributed to something we feel in a perfectly natural way, then what does it mean to say that God is love? And other such questions.

But like I said, it wasn't long before I realized this video was on a fast train to crazy town. I actually haven't thought about this thing in a while... hmm... good to talk about it.

*edit*

Oh, and I did watch another more credible documentary on TED that explained that some emotions are all chemical while others--especially love--are a combination of chemical emotions and basic drives. (evolutionary benefits).

*/edit* 

If anyone has any better understanding as to how emotions work, I'd like to know them. What The Bleep is not a good source, obviously.

Right On!!

Profundity, spirituality,  a sense of peace, a sense of love, a sense of awe. These are things we all crave, even the most rational of us crave.

Does the fact that they are merely functions and reactions of the brain make them any less desirable or meaningful?

Religious people say it comes from God and it can be achieved by meditating on God. The sense of peace and love one gets from God is all the proof that you need.

Bull crap! but here's the punchline: Meditation is good for you. Here's the other punchline: I believe the effects of meditation are a by product of human evolution.

Language is something we humans developed very late in our history. It is what sets us apart from the rest of the species. Language has aggressively taken over our mind. We spend every waking hour speaking, listening, reading, writing, or thinking with words.

And yet for the first 6 million years of our evolution, we had no language. We got by on our instincts like all the other non speaking animals.

I believe that meditation, which is practiced in every single religion, is a way to shut down temporarily our language center and open up our senses to simply being. You do not have to be religious to experience or understand meditation. (See the last chapter of The End of Faith)

Spirituality is a function of the brain. Many "psychic premonitions" can be explained by our non-verbal right brain understanding something before our verbal left brain figures it out. Its a weird sensation we all experience, and easy to mistake for divine revelation. For, me a biological explanation is more reassuring than a metaphysical one.

Ultimately, I believe it is possible to be rational and spiritual at the same time. 

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord

Randalllord wrote:

RationalSchema wrote:
Who is that weird lady on there??

The weirdest lady on there was J.Z. Knight AKA Ramtha, so I think that must be who you are asking about.

http://skepdic.com/ramtha.html

 

I wonder why my above link is not working.

 Ms Knight is some kind of medium or clairvoyant, something like that which is not such a bad thing in my books, it's her 'Jocelyn Wildenstein' head that totally gives me the creeps. It's obvious what she really believes in is not what she preaches.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:   She's

Eloise wrote:

 

She's got that fake, 'soulless' smile that so many ID'ers have. There is nothing behind the eyes, and the smile is simply a ruse. Sad that people can not conjure up a real smile.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: Randalllord

Eloise wrote:
Randalllord wrote:

RationalSchema wrote:
Who is that weird lady on there??

The weirdest lady on there was J.Z. Knight AKA Ramtha, so I think that must be who you are asking about.

http://skepdic.com/ramtha.html

 

I wonder why my above link is not working.

Ms Knight is some kind of medium or clairvoyant, something like that which is not such a bad thing in my books, it's her 'Jocelyn Wildenstein' head that totally gives me the creeps. It's obvious what she really believes in is not what she preaches.

Eloise,

J. Z. Knight claims to "channel" the spirit of "Ramtha". I think its a bad thing when someone fools themselve and/or othres into believeing such dribble. James Randi gave her a Pigasus award in 2005 for this absurd movie:

"Category 3, to the media outlet that reported as factual the most outrageous supernatural, paranormal, or occult claims: The prize goes to the film What the Bleep Do We Know?, a fantasy docudrama cult hit supposedly about the "nature of reality" [see SI, September/ October 2004 and January/February 2005]. More than a dozen scientists, theologians, and mystics appear. However, the product placement reveals that among the physicists, neurologists, and academics who expound the film's thesis is New Age icon J.Z. Knight, who claims to be channeling a 35,000-year-old god/warrior from Atlantis named Ramtha. The film's producers, writers, directors, and some of the stars are members of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment in Washington State, several of the scientists are affiliated with Knight's school, and the film was largely financed by one of Knight's students. It's a blatant effort by religious, mystical, and New Age gurus such as Deepak Chopra to disguise their views as real science. Thrown in are the fantasies of Masura Emoto, who claims to have proven that thoughts can change the structure of water; his "experiments" consist of taping written words to glasses of water (see www.randi. org/jr/052303.html). The "Maharishi Effect," an equally vacuous notion, is also offered. A rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults, it is still filling theaters all over the world."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_29/ai_n14816979 

I noticed the photo you used is at least 20 years old. Here is an more recent one:

 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca