Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

A skeptical look at medical practices
User avatar
floatingbones
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:19 pm

Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by floatingbones » Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:36 am

At the end of July, I saw a screening of the film "The Living Matrix: A Film on the New Science of Healing" (typically just called "The Living Matrix"). This film is done in the style of "What the Bleep ..." and "The Secret" (it's closer to Bleep) with tightly-cut interviews of a bunch of experts. It was released straight to DVD earlier this year.

I posted a full review of the film at http://floatingbones.com/?p=92. I made a second blog posting about one particular claim that doesn't stand up to a basic fact-check: http://floatingbones.com/?p=171.

The bottom line message of the film: life interacts with a quantum-physics field that has all sorts of interesting properties: no propagation delay, infinite storage capacity, infinite bandwidth, connection with every part of the cosmos, infinite source of power. To restate: omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Our health problems are caused by incorrectly interacting with "the field".

The movie is done very slickly. Cuts with the "experts" are very tight; one is given no time to evaluate an idea before another one is discussed. Particularly insidious are the comments of the voice-over narrator. "The field" is mentioned by so many people in so many different ways that one feels like an idiot for not already knowing about it. I first saw the film in a theatrical screening; I completely missed the "giant bird brain" gaffe. The most valuable tool for deconstructing this film was my DVD player's pause button.

I posted my review and made comments in a dozen or so places that talked about the film. My review shows up in google in the first 6 or so hits of "the living matrix" and review. As far as I can tell, it's about the only review that challenges/questions the premise of the film. I did submit the review to thelivingmatrixmovie.com to reference on their reviews page; I haven't heard back from them. ;-( I've also sent several tweets to @thelivingmatrix but haven't heard back.

I would like several things:

    o Advice on what I should do next.
    o I'd like to work with someone familiar with creating wikipedia pages to create one for this film.
    o I'd like to have more skeptics review this film.
    o I'm thinking of making a list of questions to think about if you go to a screening of this film.

As I noted in my review, all sorts of interesting science is happening WRT our health and well-being. It's truly disappointing that this wasn't a documentary about real science.

Thanks for the advice and for anyone else who takes on the cause of this film.

I don't think "what the bleep" would have had nearly the same impact if the skeptic community had engaged more rapidly.

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by vanderpoel » Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:52 am

Floatingbones made the following comments in reviewing TLM
TLM expert Lynne McTaggart comments, “Many scientists who are on the frontier theorize and have demonstrated that we’re an information system, and it’s not entirely localized in our body. That we’re accessing information from The Field all the time.” What scientists? What theories? How did they test their theories, and where did they publish their results? If the scientists weren’t doing all these things, then they weren’t actually scientifically theorizing.

What Peter Fraser is referring to with his comment on holographic messages are the engrams discovered by Richard Semon.

Karl S. Lashley's search for the engram found that it could not exist in any specific part of the rat's brain, but that memory was widely distributed throughout the cortex. Later Richard F. Thompson studied the engram in the cerebellum, rather than the cerebral cortex.

The theory that TLM seems to endorse is that magnetic fields emanating from the body have the potential of carrying engrams, each of which seem to have the potential to contain memory.
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

User avatar
floatingbones
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by floatingbones » Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:17 pm

vanderpoel wrote:The theory that TLM seems to endorse is that magnetic fields emanating from the body have the potential of carrying engrams, each of which seem to have the potential to contain memory.

Or not. We have no real way of knowing. That's the point: in a movie claiming to be about science, we are having to guess what science/speculation they're talking about.

A "case study" in the film discusses communication to subjects inside of a faraday cage. That would indicate they're talking about something other than magnetic fields.
Cimbal's "giant bird brain" comments:
“Every one of us has watched a flock of birds in flight and how it changes direction. Instantly, all birds in the flock change direction. So, it seems as if a superior bird-brain controls all the birds simultaneously. That only works with the help of those fields, since the fields are able to transfer, with no information loss, and, above all, instantaneously with no time delay.”
also seem to be talking about something other than magnetic forces. (The Cimbal quote is from my blog entry about direction shifts in flocks: http://floatingbones.com/?p=171.)

I don't see any great value in speculating here what TLM is talking about. If the film is about science, then the filmmakers should tell us. A documentary without documentation is an oxymoron.

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by vanderpoel » Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:03 pm

floatingbones wrote:I don't see any great value in speculating here what TLM is talking about.

Well, then why are you asking us to comment: "What theories?" But if itʻs not OK for us to speculate, why is that OK for you? As in:
..also seem to be talking about something other than magnetic forces.

Or why are you saying that we should guess:
... we are having to guess what science/speculation they're talking about.

If the film is about science, then the filmmakers should tell us.

You claim they did:
... in a movie claiming to be about science,..
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

User avatar
floatingbones
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by floatingbones » Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:57 pm

vanderpoel wrote:
floatingbones wrote:I don't see any great value in speculating here what TLM is talking about.

Well, then why are you asking us to comment "What theories?"


That was from my review of the movie on my blog. It's directed to the moviemakers.
For McTaggart to claim that scientists are theorizing/demonstrating on the topic with no reference to the theories is totally nonsensical. In the words of the famous Wendy's commercial: Where's the science?

But if itʻs not OK for us to speculate, why is that OK for you? As in:
..also seem to be talking about something other than magnetic forces.


We can rule out magnetic forces because "experts" in the movie are describing behavior not consistent with magnetic forces: information transfer through faraday cages and "instantaneous" transfer of information.

On the other hand, I have no idea what precisely they are talking about. All I can really say is that it seems to be some wild/poetic extrapolation of the science of the zero-point field.

Or why are you saying that we should guess:
... we are having to guess what science/speculation they're talking about.


I'm commenting on the absurdity of the moviemakers claiming there are theories and failing to provide references to them.

That's an unacceptable way for a documentary to deliver science.

If the film is about science, then the filmmakers should tell us.

You claim they did:
... in a movie claiming to be about science,..


The key word is "claim". The documentary claims to deliver science, but has failed to deliver.

You appear to be upset about something. Are you upset there's a movie that claims to be about science but fails to deliver?

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by vanderpoel » Sun Aug 23, 2009 12:07 am

floatingbones wrote:
vanderpoel wrote:
floatingbones wrote:I don't see any great value in speculating here what TLM is talking about.

Well, then why are you asking us to comment "What theories?"


That was from my review of the movie on my blog. It's directed to the moviemakers.
For McTaggart to claim that scientists are theorizing/demonstrating on the topic with no reference to the theories is totally nonsensical. In the words of the famous Wendy's commercial: Where's the science?

But if itʻs not OK for us to speculate, why is that OK for you? As in:
..also seem to be talking about something other than magnetic forces.


We can rule out magnetic forces because "experts" in the movie are describing behavior not consistent with magnetic forces: information transfer through faraday cages and "instantaneous" transfer of information.

On the other hand, I have no idea what precisely they are talking about. All I can really say is that it seems to be some wild/poetic extrapolation of the science of the zero-point field.

Or why are you saying that we should guess:
... we are having to guess what science/speculation they're talking about.


I'm commenting on the absurdity of the moviemakers claiming there are theories and failing to provide references to them.

That's an unacceptable way for a documentary to deliver science.

If the film is about science, then the filmmakers should tell us.

You claim they did:
... in a movie claiming to be about science,..


The key word is "claim". The documentary claims to deliver science, but has failed to deliver.

You appear to be upset about something. Are you upset there's a movie that claims to be about science but fails to deliver?

Not at all, that seems to be your thing. :mrgreen:
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

User avatar
floatingbones
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by floatingbones » Sun Aug 23, 2009 12:38 am

vanderpoel wrote:Not at all, that seems to be your thing.

If a movie claims to be about science and fails to deliver, it's perfectly appropriate to criticize that behavior -- especially in a forum about skepticism.

I'm left mystified what you are upset about. Since the moviemakers fail to provide documentation to what theories they're talking about, we really have no idea. As far as I can tell, there are no theories that link our health/healing to quantum physics.

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by vanderpoel » Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:56 am

floatingbones wrote:
vanderpoel wrote:Not at all, that seems to be your thing.

If a movie claims to be about science and fails to deliver, it's perfectly appropriate to criticize that behavior -- especially in a forum about skepticism.

I'm left mystified what you are upset about. Since the moviemakers fail to provide documentation to what theories they're talking about, we really have no idea. As far as I can tell, there are no theories that link our health/healing to quantum physics.

Dude, I donʻt know why you keep insinuating that Iʻm upset about anything. I assure you Iʻm not, although that gets to be annoying.

What did I do? You asked a question and I answered that "TLM seems to endorse is that magnetic fields emanating from the body have the potential of carrying engrams, each of which seem to have the potential to contain memory."

You retorted: "Or not. We have no real way of knowing." Well duh, thatʻs why I used the phrase "seems to endorse..." and "seems to have the potential".

Then you commented: "I don't see any great value in speculating here what TLM is talking about. If the film is about science, then the filmmakers should tell us. A documentary without documentation is an oxymoron."

When I pointed out that you yourself are speculating: "..also seem to be talking about something other than magnetic forces." your answer is: "You appear to be upset about something. Are you upset there's a movie that claims to be about science but fails to deliver?"

Like I said, that seems to be your thing. Unless I misinterpret your writing, you seem to be very upset about the way the movie is edited, the absurdity of the moviemakers claiming there are theories and failing to provide references to them and the unacceptable way for a documentary to deliver science.

I am sorry that I donʻt have the same emotional investment in this movie as you obviously have, but I would appreciate it if you debate the issues instead of my state of mind. 8-)
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

User avatar
floatingbones
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by floatingbones » Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:06 am

vanderpoel wrote:What did I do? You asked a question and I answered that "TLM seems to endorse is that magnetic fields emanating from the body have the potential of carrying engrams, each of which seem to have the potential to contain memory."

Anyone who viewed the film and understands the fundamentals of electromagnetism should know they were not talking about magnetic fields. The were describing something that worked "instantly", "[with] no information loss", and "[with] no time delay" and where information could travel through a faraday cage.

If you wish to discuss this further, please send me a private message. Thanks.

If anyone has suggestions on how to publicize the pseudoscience and factual errors in this movie, please let me know what ideas you have.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11891
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:19 am

floatingbones

Most of the people who are involved in this forum would strongly endorse what you are doing, and say : "Well done!"

Sadly, the world is full of the superstitious, who oppose the skeptic approach, and are happy to believe in things without credible evidence.

Sounds to me as if you have done what you can and should. Trying to convince those who believe in superstition to believe in good science instead, is rather like trying to knock down a brick wall with your head. You get no-where, and you can get hurt. My advise is to present good data, and not hang around to fight. Galileo nearly got burned at the stake, till he woke up to the fact that he had to make a temporary retreat. It did not stop his teachings from becoming accepted wisdom in centuries to come.

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by vanderpoel » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:31 am

floatingbones wrote:
vanderpoel wrote:What did I do? You asked a question and I answered that "TLM seems to endorse that magnetic fields emanating from the body have the potential of carrying engrams, each of which seem to have the potential to contain memory."

Anyone who viewed the film and understands the fundamentals of electromagnetism should know they were not talking about magnetic fields.

Nonsense. The trailer very specifically mentions magnetic fields.

Here is the verbatim transcript:
Edgar Mitchel Phd states: "Matter is compressed energy, information is patterns of energy. There is an information flow in our bodies."

Dieter Cimbal Phd. follows that with: "The actual regulation of the whole organism and the coordination of all cells is accomplished with such information fields."

Dr. Rollin McGraty says that: "The heart generates by far the largest electromagnetic signal in the body. If you look at this magnetic field as a carrier wave, itʻs been modulated with information." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-I7JTXCbo

The illustration accompanying this statement shows this magnetic field emanating from the body.

These are scientifically correct observations and so is my statement that: "TLM seems to endorse that magnetic fields emanating from the body have the potential of carrying engrams, each of which seem to have the potential to contain memory."

Please understand that I am not endorsing the conclusions that TLM makes about qualities of healing.
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11891
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:53 am

Vanderpoel

The TLM people are indulging in pseudoscience by using scientific jargon to make unscientific points. The magnetic field of the human body is so incredibly miniscule that any conclusion like their's is just superstitious mumbo jumbo.

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by vanderpoel » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:33 am

Well Lance, Floatingbones is correctly assailing the authors about the video, but he is incorrectly ascribing the nature of my comments to emotion and he is wrong about the facts of my comment on magnetic fields.

I have specifically stated that I am not endorsing their conclusions. As a matter of fact I am in agreement with you and him that their conclusions are pseudoscientific.

They have smartly edited credible scientific theories from a few credible scientists with some baloney from questionable commentators to conclude farfetched ideas about healing.

Be that as it may, let me refresh you on the statement Floatingbones made in reviewing TLM:

"TLM expert Lynne McTaggart comments, “Many scientists who are on the frontier theorize and have demonstrated that we’re an information system, and it’s not entirely localized in our body."

It seemed that floatingbones questioned that assertion when he asked: What Scientist? What Theory?

However, that statement is scientifically correct and I supported that as follows:
"Karl S. Lashley's search for the engram found that it could not exist in any specific part of the rat's brain, but that memory was widely distributed throughout the cortex. Later Richard F. Thompson studied the engram in the cerebellum, rather than the cerebral cortex."

These scientists have proven that information is not entirely localized in the body and itʻs no surprise that those who believe in psychokinesis and homeopathy are all over this.
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11891
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:05 am

Vanderpoel

Certainly, memory is not entirely localised in one part of the brain. However, I am not sure I understand why this point is supposed to be significant?? The brain is a result of evolution, which is a seriously imperfect way to design an organism. If humans designed a memory system, we would make it systematic and localised. But the brain was not designed by people.

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by vanderpoel » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:28 am

It is significant in that the TLM video uses the finding that information is not localized in the brain as an indication that it can therefore be anywhere.

This theory is supported in cognitive neuroscience by the findings on engrams, which are the hypothetical means by which memory traces are stored as biophysical or biochemical change in the brain (and other neural tissue) in response to external stimuli.

They are also sometimes thought of as a neural network or fragment of memory, sometimes using a hologram analogy to describe its action in light of results showing that memory appears not to be localized in the brain.
http://www.gfai.de/~heinz/publications/ ... stract.htm

The fact that nobody has been able to localize memory in the brain or the hypothesis of itʻs holographic character does not automatically lead to the conclusion that information is accessible outside the body, as the TLM writers will have you believe, as part of the emanation of electromagnetic activity.

As of now there is no scientific support for that conclusion and even if there is the possibility that information exists within our ʻmagnetic fieldʻ, there is no research or evidence that it can be accessed, manipulated or treated.
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

User avatar
floatingbones
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by floatingbones » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:47 pm

vanderpoel wrote:
floatingbones wrote:Anyone who viewed the film and understands the fundamentals of electromagnetism should know they were not talking about magnetic fields. Anyone who viewed the film and understands the fundamentals of electromagnetism should know they were not talking about magnetic fields. The were describing something that worked "instantly", "[with] no information loss", and "[with] no time delay" and where information could travel through a faraday cage.

Nonsense. The trailer very specifically mentions magnetic fields.

The trailer does explicitly mention magnetic fields. And the words above would rule out magnetic fields. Yet the final comment in the movie proper is “[…] but I think now we have a viable scientific theory for how the body stores and accesses information. So we do have a medical revolution on our hands.”

Is that "viable scientific theory" about magnetic fields or not? I don't know. You don't know. The movie contradicts itself -- that's the source of the nonsense.

When we make a wikipedia article about this movie, the moviemakers' flip-flopping about whether or not "the living matrix" is a magnetic field would be an excellent topic to discuss.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11891
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:00 pm

To floatingbones

A question.
The formation of a valid scientific theory, to explain some phenomenon, follows these steps.

1. Gather enough data to form the basis of a hypothesis.
2. Form a hypothesis.
3. Design an experiment or novel observation to test the hypothesis, such that, if the hypothesis is wrong, the test will disprove it.
4. Carry out said experiment or novel observation.
5. If, and only if, the hypothesis passes the test - re-word it as a theory.

So....
Do the movie makers follow this process?

User avatar
floatingbones
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by floatingbones » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 pm

vanderpoel wrote:Well Lance, Floatingbones is correctly assailing the authors about the video, but he is incorrectly ascribing the nature of my comments to emotion and he is wrong about the facts of my comment on magnetic fields.

What I said: "Anyone who viewed the film and understands the fundamentals of electromagnetism should know they were not talking about magnetic fields." Dr. Dietmar Cimbal's comments were clearly talking about forces that are not magnetic. You can read the entire quote from Dr. Cimbal on my blog entry http://floatingbones.com/?p=171.

The fundamental forces of "the living matrix" as the experts speculate about them in the film are clearly NOT magnetic.

Veanderpoel: have you actually viewed the film?

User avatar
floatingbones
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by floatingbones » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:21 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:A question.
The formation of a valid scientific theory, to explain some phenomenon, follows these steps.

1. Gather enough data to form the basis of a hypothesis.
2. Form a hypothesis.
3. Design an experiment or novel observation to test the hypothesis, such that, if the hypothesis is wrong, the test will disprove it.
4. Carry out said experiment or novel observation.
5. If, and only if, the hypothesis passes the test - re-word it as a theory.

So....
Do the movie makers follow this process?

No. There are several case studies involving healing described in the film, but no link to a writeup of those case studies is ever provided. No hypothesis are ever described, and there is no mention of ever testing a particular hypothesis/predictor.

Any link between the healing a how it was accomplished is pure speculation. "We don't know how this healing was accomplished, therefore ... quantum physics must be involved!" Those words are never said, of course.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33819
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by Gord » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:23 pm

vanderpoel wrote:...the statement Floatingbones made in reviewing TLM:

"TLM expert Lynne McTaggart comments, “Many scientists who are on the frontier theorize and have demonstrated that we’re an information system, and it’s not entirely localized in our body."

It seemed that floatingbones questioned that assertion when he asked: What Scientist? What Theory?

However, that statement is scientifically correct and I supported that as follows:
"Karl S. Lashley's search for the engram found that it could not exist in any specific part of the rat's brain, but that memory was widely distributed throughout the cortex. Later Richard F. Thompson studied the engram in the cerebellum, rather than the cerebral cortex."

These scientists have proven that information is not entirely localized in the body and itʻs no surprise that those who believe in psychokinesis and homeopathy are all over this.

By "not entirely localized in the body," does that mean it's all within the body, just not localized? Or does that mean it's not entirely within the body, and some of it is "outside" of the body?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by vanderpoel » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:45 am

Gord wrote:
vanderpoel wrote:...the statement Floatingbones made in reviewing TLM:

"TLM expert Lynne McTaggart comments, “Many scientists who are on the frontier theorize and have demonstrated that we’re an information system, and it’s not entirely localized in our body."

It seemed that floatingbones questioned that assertion when he asked: What Scientist? What Theory?

However, that statement is scientifically correct and I supported that as follows:
"Karl S. Lashley's search for the engram found that it could not exist in any specific part of the rat's brain, but that memory was widely distributed throughout the cortex. Later Richard F. Thompson studied the engram in the cerebellum, rather than the cerebral cortex."

These scientists have proven that information is not entirely localized in the body and itʻs no surprise that those who believe in psychokinesis and homeopathy are all over this.

By "not entirely localized in the body," does that mean it's all within the body, just not localized? Or does that mean it's not entirely within the body, and some of it is "outside" of the body?

According to Floatingbones, TLM commentator Lynne McTaggart made the statement: "not entirely localized in the body."
I believe that Lashley and Thompson proved that it's not localized within the brain, whereas McTaggart takes it to mean also outside the body.

Thatʻs a leap of faith, since Lashley and Thompson only tested the cerebellum and the cerebral cortex, but never tested the existence of engrams or information systems outside the brain. Nobody else did such study either, that Iʻm aware of.
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

User avatar
floatingbones
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by floatingbones » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:24 am

vanderpoel wrote:
Gord wrote:
vanderpoel wrote:However, that statement is scientifically correct and I supported that as follows:
"Karl S. Lashley's search for the engram found that it could not exist in any specific part of the rat's brain, but that memory was widely distributed throughout the cortex. Later Richard F. Thompson studied the engram in the cerebellum, rather than the cerebral cortex."

These scientists have proven that information is not entirely localized in the body and itʻs no surprise that those who believe in psychokinesis and homeopathy are all over this.

By "not entirely localized in the body," does that mean it's all within the body, just not localized? Or does that mean it's not entirely within the body, and some of it is "outside" of the body?

According to Floatingbones, TLM commentator Lynne McTaggart made the statement: "not entirely localized in the body."

You truncated the McTaggart quote I published in http://floatingbones.com/?p=92. Here's the full quote; it's at timestamp 1:02:29 on the DVD:
TLM expert McTaggart wrote:“Many scientists who are on the frontier theorize and have demonstrated that we’re an information system, and it’s not entirely localized in our body. That we’re accessing information from The Field all the time.”

vanderpoel wrote:I believe that Lashley and Thompson proved that it's not localized within the brain, whereas McTaggart takes it to mean also outside the body.

The "it" that Lashley and Thompson are talking about are magnetic forces.

The "it" that McTaggart is talking about is based on The Field -- her extrapolation of quantum zero point fields somehow organizing themselves as a bigger-than-human-sized field. This is the same "Field" that Dr. Dietmar Cimbal claims can be accessed "instantaneously" and with "no information loss" by massive flocks of birds (see http://floatingbones.com/?p=171 ).

AFAICT, what McTaggart is talking about has no relationship whatsoever to the research that Lashley and Thompson did. To coin a phrase, her speculation is in a completely different field.
vanderpoel wrote:Thatʻs a leap of faith, since Lashley and Thompson only tested the cerebellum and the cerebral cortex, but never tested the existence of engrams or information systems outside the brain. Nobody else did such study either, that Iʻm aware of.

That's a leap of faith of cosmic proportions. It shows the kind of mischief the TLM experts and filmmakers are doing: taking a smidge from science and then extrapolating and contorting it out of recognition.

Vanderpoel: have you actually viewed the film?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11891
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:17 am

floatingbones

I have not viewed the film and am going by what you tell me.

The idea that some 'field' extends outside the human body and can be accessed for information/healing is not new. About ten million quacks have pushed it before, any time over the past four centuries. At one stage medical researchers actually went to a lot of effort to try to detect that 'field'. You will not be surprised to realise that they had not success!

This is a variant on the old quack theory of vitalism, which says that a 'vital' energy, known as life energy, Qi, or ten thousand other names, permeates the body and permits life. By manipulating that energy, quacks claim to be able to heal. The sad thing is that, despite centuries of effort, no such energy has been detected, and no need has been found to postulate it. All the activities of the human body can be quite adequately explained by simple applications of chemistry and other known physics.

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by vanderpoel » Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:32 am

The transcript I provided is from this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-I7JTXCbo
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

surrounded
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by surrounded » Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:39 am

Just more of the same, but I see this trend in the new age scammer community to link all of their new "modalities" to these unsupported concepts, the quantum theory, healing energy manipulation industry is making big money these days and anyone that questions the validity of these healing modalities is living in the dark ages because they don't understand the "cutting edge, frontiers of science". At least real snake oil is high in omega 3.

User avatar
floatingbones
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:19 pm

"The Living Matrix" producer admits movie not science

Post by floatingbones » Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:02 pm

This week, Harry Massey, Executive Producer and co-writer of "The Living Matrix", admitted that the central claim of his movie is not based on science. From http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=4 ... opic=13385 :

Harry Massey writes:

Hi Phil,

As stated in previous posts - I have already referenced where the theory can be read. Peter who's statement you're asking about has also a collection of papers which is due to be published in 3 months time. I'll let you know where you can get a copy at the time. otherwise "Integrating Physics and Biology: The Coming Medical Revolution" is a place to start in reference to his quote at the end of the movie.


Is it accepted by mainstream science in peer reviewed journals? No. We've never claimed that it is. If it was, there would be no point in making the movie.

The point is to open up people to other non mainstream idea's to be investigated further ,to help fund more research and give people other possibilities of taking control of their health.

However all of the organisations in the movie, all have research programs of which on our resources pages on the site are links to their sites where their references/research can be found and in the books that they have written .http://www.thelivingmatrixmovie.com/en/resources We highly recommend you read every particpants books and research papers to full comprehend what research has been done.

As three books to start with - Decoding the Human Body-field (by P.F and H.M.) and The Field (lynne) and Energy Medcine: A scientific basis (james Oeschmann).

I'm happy to discuss further when some further reading has taken place.


http://www.nutrienergetics.com/The_Coming_Medical_Revolution-Peter_Fraser(1-0)uk.pdf is the document he is citing. It heavily quotes Milo Wolff's writings. Dense stuff.

The discussion continues on the facebook discussion page. Please join the facebook discussion if you would like to discuss this further. Thanks.

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by Monster » Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:38 pm

Since it was mentioned in the first post in this thread, I'm going to take this opportunity to complain about the "What the Bleep..." movie. That movie was a giant load of bullcrap, to put it politely! No, you DON'T create your day everyday. No, you can't just believe something is there and then it's there.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
floatingbones
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Dealing with "The Living Matrix"

Post by floatingbones » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:08 pm

Well said, Phlegmak! In the extended version of "What the Bleep...", the cartoon version of the double-slit experiment showed the "observer" as a human eye. They failed to explain that "observation" simply means a particle interaction. On the most fundamental level, that shows that they didn't get it.

The Wikipedia article on "What the Bleep..." has grown up into a very nice document. I appreciate anyone here who did the work to create that. If you deal with true believers, you may want to sit down with a copy of that article and have a long chat with them.