Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 12

[Michael Allen]

Regarding consciousness:

Here is a Hebrew program from Israel that I found on youtube about a little Druze boy called “O’Neal” in the north of Israel who, at a little after two years old, instead of starting to speak Arabic words like his parents and family and village, started talking in English with a bit of a UK accent.

The producers of this episode of the show, P’nim Ah’mee’tee’yote, presented the evidence for a possible case of reincarnation. During the course of the show, the producers interviewed four professionals, a career nurse-midwife, an education administrator, a brain researcher / clinical psychologist, and a speech therapist / linguist. The first two were well acquainted with the boy and were thoroughly convinced the case is genuine. The last two were very surprised about what they saw of the case. The speech therapist / linguist actually tested the boy and concluded that somehow, he’d developed very good language skills in English, but was noticeably deficient in his Arabic development, even though the Druze village is Arabic speaking. The producers tried to find a rational way to explain the situation, but the case remained tantalizingly unexplained. The producers also even interviewed a spiritual medium, but of course she offered no critical check for the idea of reincarnation.

For those who need to brush up on their Near Eastern religious groups, the Druze are a centuries-old offshoot of Islam that after many centuries have turned into their own peculiar religion. Reincarnation is very much a part of their worldview. Druze are found in Israel, Lebanon, Syria. Druze are loyal to any government they find themselves under. Druze in Israel speak Hebrew well, a language akin to Arabic, and the interviews are in Hebrew. Druze serve in Israel’s army and take part in Israeli politics too.

The program P’nim Ah’mee’tee’yote is a regular series in Israel that has been going for at least five seasons and covers all kinds of topics, some of them on the para side of the normal. I suppose it might be compared to something like Sixty Minutes, except that its about 35 minutes long, and that just doesn’t have a real ring to it as far as a name goes.

The boy, and some other people, occasionally speak English during the program that you’d understand. I decided for your edification, to translate and transcribe the show, and it’s accurate enough to understand what is going on here. It is attached. I’ve added many time stamps so you can check the video at the time if you like. I suggest reading the attached transcript before watching the video if you want to watch it.

To me the case looks legitimate for a para-normal explanation, even though I am not a proponent of reincarnation. I would explain it with so-called incorporeal entities who influence humans with all manner of paranormal phenomena and who have directly influenced the child in a range of ways. Admittedly, final proof for any paranormal view is lacking, as is a “rational” explanation. YMMV.

Speaking english as one who has been coached by someone who speaks arabic....NEXT!!!!

 

[Constance]

responding to this paragraph by @Michael Allen:

"Interesting...you say "something intelligent" to exist...but in order to make a statement you have to be something like that to observe and report from the outside. The "existence" seems to be dependent on there being more than one being in a world that can possess this thing we are trying to grok. If that is the case then how is it possible for an observer to see something like it's own foundation of self-reflection in others without the component of experience which brought about the entire framework?"

Randle wrote: "For me, existence, consciousness, and intelligence, are three separate concepts, and I'm not sure what "thing" you're referring to."

There is a lot to unwrap even in these brief extracts. I think that the 'thing' MA is referring to is awareness not only of being-in-an-environing-world extending beyond an individual's 'self'/core/locus of awareness but also the essential awareness of being in this world among others who evidently share experiences of the world similar to one's own. These primary recognitions/understandings cannot actually be accounted for in terms of 'intelligence' since they begin/are founded in prereflective, pre-thetic, but proto-emotional consciousness. These recognitions/understandings nevertheless constitute the ground from which prereflective consciousness develops into reflective consciousness, and, more significantly -- from a psychological perspective -- either do or do not succeed in enableing stable capacities for intersubjective relations between self and other(s) as well as between self and world.

I've recently been reading both philosophical and psychological papers on the subject of intersubjectivity and will share links to them if anyone is interested in pursuing this subject. Notably, it has been phenomenologically trained psychotherapists who have recognized the parallels in so-called 'self-disorders' and 'relational disorders' existing on the autistic spectrum and the schizophrenic spectrum. These conditions, when acute, are tragic. They are also philosophically interesting and informative for those seeking to understand consciousness and mind.

I'll quote one more interchange between Randle and Michael that led me to bring the above subject matter forward.

Randle wrote: "It seems safe to assume that humans in general experience what it's like to be human because we're all made about the same, therefore we should all function about the same."

Michael replied: "Indeed."

My point is that we don't. I think that in order to understand how human consciousnesses function in the world we share, we need to pursue the study of psychology as well as philosophy.

 

[Constance]

Regarding consciousness:

Here is a Hebrew program from Israel that I found on youtube about a little Druze boy called “O’Neal” in the north of Israel who, at a little after two years old, instead of starting to speak Arabic words like his parents and family and village, started talking in English with a bit of a UK accent.

The producers of this episode of the show, P’nim Ah’mee’tee’yote, presented the evidence for a possible case of reincarnation. During the course of the show, the producers interviewed four professionals, a career nurse-midwife, an education administrator, a brain researcher / clinical psychologist, and a speech therapist / linguist. The first two were well acquainted with the boy and were thoroughly convinced the case is genuine. The last two were very surprised about what they saw of the case. The speech therapist / linguist actually tested the boy and concluded that somehow, he’d developed very good language skills in English, but was noticeably deficient in his Arabic development, even though the Druze village is Arabic speaking. The producers tried to find a rational way to explain the situation, but the case remained tantalizingly unexplained. The producers also even interviewed a spiritual medium, but of course she offered no critical check for the idea of reincarnation.

For those who need to brush up on their Near Eastern religious groups, the Druze are a centuries-old offshoot of Islam that after many centuries have turned into their own peculiar religion. Reincarnation is very much a part of their worldview. Druze are found in Israel, Lebanon, Syria. Druze are loyal to any government they find themselves under. Druze in Israel speak Hebrew well, a language akin to Arabic, and the interviews are in Hebrew. Druze serve in Israel’s army and take part in Israeli politics too.

The program P’nim Ah’mee’tee’yote is a regular series in Israel that has been going for at least five seasons and covers all kinds of topics, some of them on the para side of the normal. I suppose it might be compared to something like Sixty Minutes, except that its about 35 minutes long, and that just doesn’t have a real ring to it as far as a name goes.

The boy, and some other people, occasionally speak English during the program that you’d understand. I decided for your edification, to translate and transcribe the show, and it’s accurate enough to understand what is going on here. It is attached. I’ve added many time stamps so you can check the video at the time if you like. I suggest reading the attached transcript before watching the video if you want to watch it.

To me the case looks legitimate for a para-normal explanation, even though I am not a proponent of reincarnation. I would explain it with so-called incorporeal entities who influence humans with all manner of paranormal phenomena and who have directly influenced the child in a range of ways. Admittedly, final proof for any paranormal view is lacking, as is a “rational” explanation. YMMV.

I'm very interested to see this post and to pursue what @Farlig Gulstein has linked for us to read. I spent several years reading the substantial research on reincarnation produced by Ian Stephenson and his colleagues, in the US and internationally. This research continues at the University of Virginia and elsewhere. I read enough in this field to become convinced that many young children in locations around the planet do present memories, behaviors, and verifiable information indicating that some part of the child's consciousness and mind remain connected to experiences in a former life.

I find it much easier to account for evidence of reincarnation as indicated in childrens' "memories of past lives" within the larger context of 'supranormal' or 'para-normal' phenomena than in terms of 'incorporeal entities' pressing these ideations into the minds of three-year-old children. Against the latter hypothesis there stands a great deal of veridical information from these 'past lives' that has been confirmed after exhaustive research by Stephenson and his colleagues.

We've tried at several times in this forum for more than three years now to take up and discuss the range of paranormal experiences that have penetrated the consciousnesses of numberless people past and present. I'd be happy to see us develop this discussion of 'reincarnation' and hope that others are. Thanks to Farlig Gulstein for posting here.

ETA: I'm unable to open the pdf of your translation and transcription of the linked program. Can you reset it so that it's accessible here?

ETA: Never mind; I've just found that your text downloaded automatically after I clicked on the symbol.

 

[Constance]

@Farlig Gulstein, I've finished reading your transcription and am grateful to you for providing it. Have you referred this case to the University of Virginia Department of Psychology? I'll get an address for you and post it here, though it might be best if you simply email what you've provided here and the linked transcription to the current director of the program in reincarnation studies. I've forgotten his name but will find it (I have a recent book on reincarnation by him) and contact him to get his email address.

It was fascinating to learn that there was a connection between Waj’di, the English speaking man in the Druze community who had spent time five years before among a Druze population in London and perhaps knew a member of that community who had been killed. Much more needs to be learned about that individual and the date and circumstances of his death. The usual situation in reincarnation cases is that reincarnations occur fairly soon after the death of the preceding person, and most frequently the former individual has died a violent death in young adulthood. As Ian Stephenson showed, many of the small children reporting memories of past lives carry scars at the bodily locations where the previous individual was shot or otherwise mortally wounded. It seems most likely to me that a young Druze man in London might well want to reincarnate part of himself in the location of his original home.

 

[Michael Allen]

*placeholder

(1) "Intelligence is a form of data processing whereas [in contrast to? or because of?] consciousness is the experience of existing"

But what if the form of data processing is a fundamental and unthinkable foundation of your "experience of existing"

Thus the next question is superfluous...if you know something about (1)...how?

The "I suppose we might ask [only a very particular kind of consciousness which has the experience of existing can even parse "ask" ] the same question about any sort of knowledge."

OK the problem here is that you've put the very thing that creates and sorts into the same category as that which has already "created and sorted" prior to your awareness of the "question".

We cannot put the answer to the very question that is put to the being that questions and thus arrive at a "real" meaning...the questioner has already assumed the basis before it began...so you have to erase the question and stare blankly at the source of the questioning...i.e. the questioner

 

[Michael Allen]

There is a lot to unwrap even in these brief extracts. I think that the 'thing' MA is referring to is awareness not only of being-in-an-environing-world extending beyond an individual's 'self'/core/locus of awareness but also the essential awareness of being in this world among others who evidently share experiences of the world similar to one's own. These primary recognitions/understandings cannot actually be accounted for in terms of 'intelligence' since they begin/are founded in prereflective, pre-thetic, but proto-emotional consciousness. These recognitions/understandings nevertheless constitute the ground from which prereflective consciousness develops into reflective consciousness, and, more significantly -- from a psychological perspective -- either do or do not succeed in enableing stable capacities for intersubjective relations between self and other(s) as well as between self and world.

I've recently been reading both philosophical and psychological papers on the subject of intersubjectivity and will share links to them if anyone is interested in pursuing this subject. Notably, it has been phenomenologically trained psychotherapists who have recognized the parallels in so-called 'self-disorders' and 'relational disorders' existing on the autistic spectrum and the schizophrenic spectrum. These conditions, when acute, are tragic. They are also philosophically interesting and informative for those seeking to understand consciousness and mind.

I'll quote one more interchange between Randle and Michael that led me to bring the above subject matter forward.

Randle wrote: "It seems safe to assume that humans in general experience what it's like to be human because we're all made about the same, therefore we should all function about the same."

Michael replied: "Indeed."

My point is that we don't. I think that in order to understand how human consciousnesses function in the world we share, we need to pursue the study of psychology as well as philosophy.

Well but even then a statement such as "it seems safe to assume humans in general....[etc etc]" is based on something more than any singularity of consciousness...what I am trying to say is that there is no such singularity...

Consciousness can only be "experienced" in a field of separated beings who think [i.e. are deluded] their own self-awareness is singular

 

[Michael Allen]

There is a lot to unwrap even in these brief extracts. I think that the 'thing' MA is referring to is awareness not only of being-in-an-environing-world extending beyond an individual's 'self'/core/locus of awareness but also the essential awareness of being in this world among others who evidently share experiences of the world similar to one's own. These primary recognitions/understandings cannot actually be accounted for in terms of 'intelligence' since they begin/are founded in prereflective, pre-thetic, but proto-emotional consciousness. These recognitions/understandings nevertheless constitute the ground from which prereflective consciousness develops into reflective consciousness, and, more significantly -- from a psychological perspective -- either do or do not succeed in enableing stable capacities for intersubjective relations between self and other(s) as well as between self and world.

Sharing is essential...without sharing consciousness-experience ...well for some reason "I" think and "I" speak this to a plurality of "I"s....funny.

[ the experience of laughter can only be shared...spoiler alert]

Funny because even laughing must have this plurality of unmentionables (i.e. sentients who ....)

Laughing by yourself...just imagine it. You can't because such is unthinkable.

Edit: as a matter of fact I laughed for 10 solid minutes after I wrote the above ... funny

 

[Constance]

Well but even then a statement such as "it seems safe to assume humans in general....[etc etc]" is based on something more than any singularity of consciousness...what I am trying to say is that there is no such singularity...

Consciousness can only be "experienced" in a field of separated beings who think [i.e. are deluded] their own self-awareness is singular

Not understanding what you mean by 'singularity' of consciousness. Would you clarify? Do you mean to claim that all human consciousnesses are 'deluded' into thinking that their personal consciousness is radically different from and isolated from the consciousnesses of others, leading to general denial of, or failure to achieve, precisely the intersubjectivity that most of us do experience in our social lives? Or do you mean to say that consciousness "can only be 'experienced in a field of separated beings" who all appear to be solipsists?

 

[Michael Allen]

Not understanding what you mean by 'singularity' of consciousness. Would you clarify? Do you mean to claim that all human consciousnesses are 'deluded' into thinking that their personal consciousness is radically different from and isolated from the consciousnesses of others, leading to general denial of, or failure to achieve, precisely the intersubjectivity that most of us do experience in our social lives? Or do you mean to say that consciousness "can only be 'experienced in a field of separated beings" who all appear to be solipcists?

yes. [logical OR]

 

[Constance]

Sharing is essential...without sharing consciousness-experience ...well for some reason "I" think and "I" speak this to a plurality of "I"s....funny.

[ the experience of laughter can only be shared...spoiler alert]

Funny because even laughing must have this plurality of unmentionables (i.e. sentients who ....)

Laughing by yourself...just imagine it. You can't because such is unthinkable.

Edit: as a matter of fact I laughed for 10 solid minutes after I wrote the above ... funny

Once again I'm perplexed by the humor you find and enjoy in contemplating the plain fact that most humans frequently find the same things to be humorous (even across cultural and language barriers) while you yourself see the collective as a "plurality of unmentionables." Can you uncover the reasons why you see humans as a "plurality of unmentionables (i.e. sentients who ...)"? Maybe you can clarify your thinking by completing the phrase "sentients who . . . ." Is this a Tower of Babel kind of thing you're trying to get at?

 

[Constance]

yes. [logical OR]

Man of few words is often misunderstood. What does 'OR' mean, and what do you understand by the term 'logic'? I've given your cryptic response the time it merits from my point of view -- about 45 seconds. Note, I'm not trying to be funny.

 

[Constance]

 

[Constance]

While you're at it, have you got any of that nice soft jazz music I can listen to?

Peace offering to Randle:

 

[Constance]

Peace offering to Randle:

And its first luminous outing with Miles Davis:

 

[Randall]

Here is a Hebrew program from Israel that I found on youtube about a little Druze boy called “O’Neal” in the north of Israel who, at a little after two years old, instead of starting to speak Arabic words like his parents and family and village, started talking in English with a bit of a UK accent ...

Like many paranormal claims, there's insufficient evidence to be sure this isn't a complete fabrication made with the use of select clips that support the claim of a mystery. In the past we've seen all manner of videos that purport to be something strange, only to find out later that they're totally fake. Even if it isn't totally fabricated, the media is notorious for putting their spin on a story, leaving out crucial details that might put a damper on it.

Children are amazing at naturally picking up sounds and languages without any instruction, and English is a dominant world language. All this child would need is some screen time with english programming, and how many people use TVs or iPads as babysitters these days? Check out the video below about a young boy named Dylan who picked up perfect pitch, something only 1 in 10,000 people acquire. There's nothing paranormal there. All Rick ( his Dad ) would have to do is leave out the details and claim Dylan is the reincarnation of some musician.

On the theory that it's reincarnation, all we need to do is examine the content. O’Neal is talking about kid's toys and chocolate treats, content that is aimed at kids during children's programming. It's not what we'd expect from someone relaying their memories following death. Not to mention that reincarnation isn't possible in the way it's usually interpreted e.g. a person being reborn. The whole idea of reincarnation and afterlives falls apart fairly quickly on deeper examination. Nevertheless the belief persists.

 

[Randall]

Randle wrote: "It seems safe to assume that humans in general experience what it's like to be human because we're all made about the same, therefore we should all function about the same."

Michael replied: "Indeed."

My point is that we don't ...

We don't what? If you mean that we don't all function about the same because we're all made about the same, perhaps you're equating "functioning" with "behavior". These are two completely different contexts. What I'm talking about is that assuming we're dealing with normal healthy humans, all will have organs, tissues, bones, brains, etc. that are made in the same way, out of the same stuff, and perform their jobs ( function ) in the same way. There is mountains of scientific evidence to support this, making it pointless to argue otherwise. Therefore we should expect that if consciousness is a trait of one human, it's probably a trait of all humans. How anyone would prove this, I don't know. Nevertheless I contend that it is a reasonable assumption.

 

[Soupie]

“Physical systems cannot be conscious, only simulations can be.”

One must conceptually move past naive realism and understand the indirect nature of perception to appreciate the above.

I continue to believe that Bach is approaching consciousness and the mbp in very unique, refreshing, but also very rigorous and scientifically grounded ways.

@Pharoah

I see some of your thinking in the following paper (although you may not).

Although you don’t couch your approach in computational terms, I think your approach is compatible with Bach’s and the following paper.

Information generation as a functional basis of consciousness

Abstract. What is the biological advantage of having consciousness? Functions of consciousness have been elusive due to the subjective nature of consciousn

academic.oup.com

 

[Soupie]

From the paper:

In other words, “online systems” that process information real time works without awareness, but to maintain information over time, consciousness is necessary.

These examples suggest that a possible function of consciousness might be to maintain sensory information in short-term memory in a flexible, usable form over a period of time after the stimulus is no longer present.

@Pharoah

Taken together, we propose that a key function of consciousness is to allow non-reflexive behavior such as responding after a delay, or executing an action based on internally generated plans. Is there a computational mechanism that is common across a variety of non-reflexive behavior?

Our hypothesis is that this ability to generate possibly counterfactual representations using internal models learned through interactions with the environment is the function of consciousness.

 

[smcder]

From the paper:

In other words, “online systems” that process information real time works without awareness, but to maintain information over time, consciousness is necessary.

These examples suggest that a possible function of consciousness might be to maintain sensory information in short-term memory in a flexible, usable form over a period of time after the stimulus is no longer present.

@Pharoah

Taken together, we propose that a key function of consciousness is to allow non-reflexive behavior such as responding after a delay, or executing an action based on internally generated plans. Is there a computational mechanism that is common across a variety of non-reflexive behavior?

Our hypothesis is that this ability to generate possibly counterfactual representations using internal models learned through interactions with the environment is the function of consciousness.

"Access consciousness" or p consciousness? If you buy Block's distinction.

 

[Michael Allen]

Once again I'm perplexed by the humor you find and enjoy in contemplating the plain fact that most humans frequently find the same things to be humorous (even across cultural and language barriers) while you yourself see the collective as a "plurality of unmentionables." Can you uncover the reasons why you see humans as a "plurality of unmentionables (i.e. sentients who ...)"? Maybe you can clarify your thinking by completing the phrase "sentients who . . . ." Is this a Tower of Babel kind of thing you're trying to get at?

Man of few words is often misunderstood. What does 'OR' mean, and what do you understand by the term 'logic'? I've given your cryptic response the time it merits from my point of view -- about 45 seconds. Note, I'm not trying to be funny.

(1) all human consciousnesses are 'deluded' into thinking that their personal consciousness is radically different from and isolated from the consciousnesses of others, leading to general denial of, or failure to achieve, precisely the intersubjectivity that most of us do experience in our social lives?
Or
(2) do you mean to say that consciousness "can only be 'experienced in a field of separated beings" who all appear to be solipcists?

Yes means either (1) or (2) is correct or both...

I am leaning on (1)...and intersubjectivity is often overlooked (precisely)

(2) is a very interesting non-intuitive solution to the problem...but I only say this because I have a fetish for the ironic.