Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anyone ever seen the film "WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW?!"???

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:36 AM
Original message
Anyone ever seen the film "WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW?!"???
This is one odd movie, but I think you other science types might like it.

Here a totally inadequate description from IMDB: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/plotsummary>

WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW?!" is a radical departure from convention. It demands a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown, indeed, not even dreamed of since Copernicus. It's a documentary. It's a story. It's mind-blowing special effects. This film plunges you into a world where quantum uncertainty is demonstrated - where neurological processes, and perceptual shifts are engaged and lived by its protagonist - where everything is alive, and reality is changed by every thought.

(more a links above and below)

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/maindetails>

Btw, it's on Encore-Drama channel right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Freedom_from_Chains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yes, I have seen it, own the DVD and the book.
Great movie!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I missed the very beginning, what exactly are they talking about?
Quantum Physics? How Memory is formed?

Maybe you could give a better description than what is at IMDB?:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freedom_from_Chains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I don't remember the IMDB acronym but,
Basically what the movie is about is the fusion of science and spirituality, notice I said spirituality not religion. And yes it talks about quantum physics because one of the problems we have with QP today is that at that level our notions of cause and effect and matter completely break down. So we have to find new ways of discerning things within our environment. One of the tools that is helping some science is the study of Budd ism as the eastern mindset is a whole different world view than the western mindset. In short it actually looks at reality instead of creating reality.

Hope that helps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Thanks, that does help. IMDB is Internet Movie Data Base...
...one of the oldest sites on the web. It's a great database of film and television.

And you're right about the way Buddhism observes reality instead of trying to create it. I spent a little more that 3 years studying the teaching of The Dalai Lama, and learned more about God and spiritually in those 3 years than what I learned in the previous 38 years as a Roman Catholic.

A lot of "main stream" septics and "Christians" seem to have a very negative opinion of The Dalai Lama, but he is actually very into Physics and Mind Science, and basically a genius.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freedom_from_Chains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Yes, I too found my spirituality through Budd ism than through
any church. However, I must point out that I recently have been reading St. Augustine and it is not what I thought it would be. He brings forth some very good questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
3. Portland discusses the movie Dec 2005
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. That's interesting. I guess Portland looks a lot like Downtown St. Louis
That's where I thought it was filmed when I started watching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
5. I loved it, and I need to get a copy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:19 AM
Response to Original message
8. You mean pseudoscience types, I think. ;)
The movie is marketing trash for a fraudster, and discussion about it barely belongs in the Religion & Theology forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=21630

Try the movie Mindwalk instead. :)

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. In the dark, they seek what Ramtha calls the ‘void at the center.’

Knight says she used to be “spiritually restless,” but not any more. Ramtha from Atlantis via Lemuria has enlightened her. He first appeared to her, she says, while she was in business school having extraordinary experiences with UFOs. She must have a great rapport with her spirit companion, since he shows up whenever she needs him to put on a performance. It is not clear why Ramtha would choose Knight, but it is very clear why Knight would choose Ramtha: fame and fortune, or simple delusion. more




Permission to print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. Copyright 2004 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, e-Skeptic magazine.
************************************************

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

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

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

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

With a bit of candor Wolfe states that quantum physics is “subject to a range of debatable hypotheses.” At the center of the debate is how to interpret the fact that at the subatomic level the act of observing electrons has an effect on their properties. Some forms of measurement pick up wave-like effects while others pick up particle effects. If the form of observation has such an effect on reality can we say there is an objective reality at all? In the famous debates between Einstein and Niels Bohr over the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum effects, Einstein was never won over to the notion of the absence of objective reality, stating: “I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurement. That is, an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think the moon is still there even if I am not looking at it looking at it.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispenza tells us that the answer is quite simple. Since we can’t stop feeling and thinking, and an addiction is “something we cannot stop,” then bad thoughts are just a problem of addiction. All we need is Ramtha’s recovery program.

Noted cellular researcher Candice Pert appears for a valuable discussion of hormones, peptides, and neurotransmitters in the brain. Since discovering opiate receptors she has since drifted into New Age nonsense. If cells are over stimulated by neurotransmitters they adjust though a process called down regulation. Dispenza tells us that this is the cause of lifelong problems, since the down regulation is passed on in cell division. In a forum on the film this past spring, I had to point out to him that brain cells, unlike other cells in the body, do not divide.

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

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

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

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

As with Emoto’s work, there has been no replication by other scientists, no control groups, and no publications in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals to confirm the Maharishi Effect.

The end of the film meanders into speculation about god. Knight tells us that Ramtha has arrived to free you from the gods who determine good and evil and punish you in the process. You can have it anyway you want. You are god. You can return to those wonderful days of childhood when the world really seemed centered around you and was created by your fantasies.

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

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

http://skepdic.com/ramtha.html#bleep
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Have you seen it, or just read the reviews?
I was just looking for opinions about it from those who had seen or read of it, I'm not promoting it.

I have to admit, I only saw the first hour, so I don't know what sort of conclusions they came to (I switched to see "Five Easy Pieces," another film I hadn't yet seen).

I also believe that it is avery difficult concept to illustrate or demonstrate, so it's possible that the project started off well, but they got in over their heads. I've worked, for nearly 20 years, in the Movie/video industry, and have see that happen many times.

The story about the scientist being edited to say what the film makers wanted him to say, rather than what he said, does surprise me at all, it happens all the time. It's definitely something to keep in mind if you are ever interviewed for television or a movie. If you have any questions about how you words will be used, ask for final cut approval.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. "Five Easy Pieces" gives a better explanation of the universe
"What the *#*$& Do We Know" is New Age propaganda. You're welcome to watch it, of course, but you do yourself a disservice if you think that it's a reliable or impartial source of information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. I read the transcript
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/w/what-the-bleep-do-we-know-script.html

After reading the transcript, I see zero reason for watching the dishonest movie which can be viewed for free here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1022317287422673112
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. That pretty much sums it up
There's no science in the science movie but it has the train wreck quality about it. You watch it for the same reason you end up watching TV shows about aliens and big foot. You know its ^#$%#$ but you just cant look away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:29 AM
Response to Original message
9. Salon review and comment from physicist:



snip>David Albert, a professor at the Columbia University physics department, has accused the filmmakers of warping his ideas to fit a spiritual agenda. "I don't think it's quite right to say I was 'tricked' into appearing," he said in a statement reposted by a critic on "What the Bleep's" Internet forum, "but it is certainly the case that 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."

"I certainly do not subscribe to the 'Ramtha School on Enlightenment,' whatever that is!" he finished. Albert provided Salon with an excerpt from a piece he's writing on the subject, in which he says, in part, "I'm unwittingly made to sound as if (maybe) I endorse its thesis."
more:
http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2004/09/16/bleep/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
10. Oh yeah
I've seen it. I've talked with some atheists here who told me it was "debunked" but they offered no evidence. I think it is great that scientists are looking at certain aspects of spirituality and investigating them instead of simply dismissing the idea that there might be something there. Valerie Hunt, professor at UCLA, has been doing work on the human energy field for over 30 years; interesting stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. "atheists here told me it was "debunked" but they offered no evidence"
That's not a true statement, but it sure is funny in a way that you didn't intend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
11. Saw it
Thought the story and acting were great. But the "weird" Ramtha person was on a bit too much for me. And if they selectively cut one of the scientist's statements, I think that is a real problem.

Still, I loved the basketball scenes. And Tiller is definitely sticking by his role in the movie--

http://www.whatthebleep.com/scientists/drh-scientists.shtml#Tiller

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
transeo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
14. Fascinating philosophy but lacking true scientific basis
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 02:59 PM by transeo
I found the movie very interesting, but not credible. There were no peer-reviewed studies of any of the "data" presented and anything coming from Ramtha ought to be taken with a serious grain of salt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
16. Not really science, but fascinating nonetheless.
By reducing all emotions, all thoughts to electrical impulses and enzymes, it tries to prove that we can control our world merely by consciously thinking about it, by deciding to change instead of just reacting to stimuli the same way over and over again as we've been 'trained' to do through experiences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
20. I watched about forty five minutes before changing the channel.
Bad science. Bad philosophy. Bad spirituality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC