Christine Calo

Melbourne Victoria, Australia

Someone is shy

Christine hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

206497
Christine Calo
Posted 2 months ago
Andrew McAfee: What will future jobs look like?
Ironically technology has saved trees :)With innovations in cloud services and mobile services and the advent of digital data in general has lead to the reduction of paper consumption. But I can see where you are getting at, more technology implies more energy consumption. Usage of these energy resources generally have an adverse effect on the environment. Although, bear in mind technology can assist in solving wastage and the environmental impact we produce with our living standards, a good example would be venturing into sustainable energy technologies.
206497
Christine Calo
Posted over 1 year ago
Paul Piff: Does money make you mean?
Noticed there’s some criticism in the simplicity of the study and the finer details of how the study was conducted. However, in spite of this the most important aspect to take away from the talk is that it triggers and draws more awareness of what the bigger problem at hand is. It’s not unknown that societies that have large and growing gaps in wealth and status, have significant social problems and declining indicators of well-being and happiness. It’s not an improbable notion that social disparity, economic inequality invokes negative human traits such as greed, elitism, self-focus/absorption. Furthermore, that these traits consequently cause decreases in compassion, altruism and forms unethical behaviour which is gravely damaging to our social structure. However, talks like these provide more recognition and illumination to what could be the possible causes to these social problems. More understanding can lead to making changes or elimination of the systems that promote these problems. Noticed there also was some criticism on Piff’s endorsement on small psychological interventions can restore levels of egalitarianism and empathy. The criticism was that these “small nudges” in the right direction is not enough to change anything. However, I do believe that behaviours such as ‘empathy’ that endorse cooperation, (as found in ‘tit for tat’ theory) is a much more evolutionary stable strategy and forms social cohesion. Empathic sociability is a positive step in the right direction. I recommend watching TED talk Jeremy Rifkin: The empathic civilization. Rifkin states, “If we can harness our empathic sensibility to establish a new global ethic that recognizes and acts to harmonize the many relationships that make up the life-sustaining forces of the planet, we will have moved beyond the detached, self-interested and utilitarian philosophical assumptions that accompanied national markets and nation state governance and into a new era of biosphere consciousness."
206497
Christine Calo
Posted over 1 year ago
What is reality ?
Hi Esteban, I don't know if helps but there was a study published in 2011 in Frontiers in Human Neurosciences, Tristan Bekinschtein which found that people in vegetative coma states (i.e. absence of awareness of self or environment, but where autonomic functions such as respiration are preserved) where patients showed signs of brain activity in response to linguistic stimuli. Patients still had consciousness, despite not having the means to express it :)
206497
Christine Calo
Posted over 1 year ago
What is reality ?
Hi Larry, Yes of course, I never refuted that. I just said that I do not imply or deny freewill existed prior to this event. I do not deny it because laws of physics would have broken down before this event. However, I do not imply it because of the possibility of the existence of a metaphysical time.
206497
Christine Calo
Posted over 1 year ago
What is reality ?
Esteban I can see where you are getting at with your “duality of map-or-territory“ theory. From what I can gather from your statements, there may be be another dimension with which there’s “simultaneous distinctive cohesive structure between the territory and map”. I’m seeing there may be correlations to quantum entanglement. In regards to your statement “In what I hold the deterministic view that everything is governed by laws of nature need not negate free will especially when a being exists outside time and space as we know it; exists even prior to the singularity event.” My stance on free will is I that I don’t refute the existence and non-existence of free will. I do believe that in our subjective reality we have some degree to be able to bend our reality to what we want it to be. However, in the objective reality where laws of nature apply, there is no free will. With the addition of the “duality of map-or-territory” idea, I’m not sure if free-will may or may not exist in this dimension. I see what you mean about how we need note negate free will. As the beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Hawking contends that time began with the big bang, assuming by time he means physical time, since you can’t have physical time before the existence of physical reality. However, Hawking does not preclude the existence of a metaphysical time prior to singularity. The nature of this metaphysical time I’m unsure of. In conclusion, I do not imply or deny freewill exists prior to the singularity event. To do so one would need to answer the age-old question, what was before the big bang? If anyone was able to answer that with evidence then they should be awarded the nobel prize.
206497
Christine Calo
Posted over 1 year ago
What is reality ?
Thank-you Harald, for your very sound explanation and clarification of absolute realities, as well as, further illumination :)
206497
Christine Calo
Posted over 1 year ago
What is reality ?
Continuation from below comment.... Esteban you talk about the three dimensions of mind, body and spirit. In truth, I am struggling to understand this in regards to how it corresponds to reality. However, I like Stuart Hammeroff’s description of these dimensions during outer body experiences occurring during near death experiences. He describes how when quantum coherence and quantum computations driven by metabolism ends (when the blood stops flowing), quantum information leaks out to the universe at large because it exists in the Planck scale (it exists in the most fundamental level). Coherence is lost and it leaks out to the universe at large. He states it doesn’t dissipates entirely because of entanglement and plus the universe is holographic. It remains in the phase relationship and can persist in the subconscious dreamlike level outside the body. Hammeroff also describes when an individual dies, quantum information/consciousness or protoconsciousness is not destroyed it, it may sort of dissipate or hang together due to quantum entanglement and can exist in some sort of afterlife hence, the possibility of reincarnation. Esteban you also mentioned “Humans even have the capacity to create stuff or rearrange the existing stuff. “ Joe Dispenza nicely describes this notion with the correlation of mirror neurons, neuroplasticity and quantum entanglement. Dispenza’s theories rebuts the deterministic view of the absence of free will. It’s an appealing notion however, I’m yet to fully understand it and believe it. Thanks guys for this very stimulating discussion and enlightening me. :)
206497
Christine Calo
Posted over 1 year ago
What is reality ?
Thank-you Larry and Pabitra for your kind comments below, I appreciate it. Estaban and Harold, I think you are right in regards to the existence of multiple realities. I made the faulty assumption that reality is the state of things that actually ‘physically’ exist. Reality is the totality of things and this includes both the physical and non-physical. Esteban I like your comment, “While we only experience reality through what we think, this map we use could accurately correspond to the reality itself.” Harald I am in agreement with you with your statement, “our universe will still be here regardless of us being around to observe it or not. Best proof for that is probably that the universe is much older than we are. So, obviously it was around long before we showed up to observe it.” It is arrogant for me or for humans to believe that one particular state of space time (i.e. the occurrence of consciousness during the big bang) was chosen purely so it could inhabit material bodies simply so we could exist. Such narcissistic mentality wouldn’t of formed the great theory of evolution or disprove that the earth is not the center of the universe. Harald I also do follow your statement about the existence of Absolute, Subjective and Inner realities. I also wanted to add that there may be the possible existence of more realities than the 3. Brian Greene’s system classification of the Landscape Multiverse describes that the laws of physics in these universes are fundamentally different than the universe we inhabit. Subjective and Objective reality is established by Newtonian and Quantum laws however, these laws may not apply in these universes therefore different and multiple realities maybe formed. Continuation...
206497
Christine Calo
Posted over 1 year ago
What is reality ?
I’m going to attempt to answer this question however; I do believe I’m under qualified, especially among you elite intellectuals. I say this with the utmost admiration. I follow the Copenhagen interpretation, “there is no deep reality”. “Our senses are constituted to give us an impression of a material world, but that this reality is a reflection of something of a different nature.” Our physical senses each have a spectrum, these senses perceives the sea of energy from a certain limited standpoint and makes up an image from that. This image is just an interpretation. Our interpretations are solely based on the ‘internal map’ of reality which is a result of our collective experiences. Copenhagen interpretation states that we create reality by observation and that there is no reality without observation. Heisenberg divides the universe into real and semi-real and considers the elementary particles to be only potentialities or possibilities. They are made real only by the act of observation. In the not real world of potentia, all of the reactions are present. Only one of these possibilities manifests in the real world. This possibility is made solid (physically apparent) only by consciousness. Consciousness is an ability to be aware of external forces. Cellular life and plant cells fall in this category. Their awareness is considered very rudimentary, but cells do sense in a chemical way light, heat, foreign cells, pH condition in liquids and other states of matter that can be good or bad for their survival. Awareness (consciousness) can be reduced to very minimal states. Additionally, any action also involves a large number of conscious entities. The people, plants, animals and all things that are considered as part of the action, will have input into the degree of control of the action and reaction. This depends on each entities’ ability to phase quantum waves of possibility so that they add amplitudes enough to make them apparent in our physical world.
206497
Christine Calo
Posted over 1 year ago
If the cure for mortality is found within your lifetime, would you go for it and become immortal?
I like to romanticize in the notion we are in a sense already immortal, everything in the universe is one unit and that what we sense as physical is in reality constructed from non-material waves. With this notion aside I can see why people would be against the idea of immortality. Why prolong life if the quality of life depreciates as you get older. Watch ‘Festival of Dangerous Idea 2013: Satyajit Das.” Das’ talks about prosperity built on the wealth trinity – a well-paying job, a nice house and comfortable retirement finance by superannuation is just an illusion. As we get older, the more difficult it becomes to fund the lifestyle we are accustomed to. In addition to this, the world would not be able to sustain life if populations were to increase immensely as the natural resources would be strained. Despite this bleak picture painted, I would still opt for immortality. I share the same opinion as Thom Spanos in which immortality “would increase the rate of scientific discovery. Great thinkers would be able to pursue their passions without their work being left for others who have to spend so much time catching up”. I think of beautiful people like Jacque Fresco who is 97 and continues to strive for improving society through engineering sustainable cities. It’s inspirational to find those individuals that persist on endeavouring despite the end product of their efforts will not happen within their lifetime. I would opt for immortality so I could devote my life to contributing to the positive progression of our evolution. I do believe if we were to reach the new evolutionary paradigm it would eliminate poverty, crime, corruption and war because traits such as truth, loyalty, justice and freedom would override our negative traits which are the cause of our problems. We would finally have evolved to have the mental capacity to fully understand the quantum and the astro and everything in between and I believe this can be achieved through scientific discovery.