Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 7

[smcder]

to say that environmental energies never interact directly with the brain ... that depends
on an arbitrary geography of the body?, physiologically the brain isn't really separable from the optic, olfactory, etc nerves, the body isn't carved up into neat little organs and organ systems, but is interconnected

... back up a step and you can say environmental energies directly interact with the nervous system ... back up a step more and it gets hard to say where the environment ends and the body begins ...

I also like it when it is said: the brain isn't conscious, we are conscious.

 

[Constance]

All the sense organs are already on the head, as close to the brain as possible.

Not the sense of touch, which extends over the entire body. The sense of touch, the feeling of touching or being touched by others and things in the world -- even by the movement and temperature of air, by light itself and the sounds that resonate and reverberate in hearing -- is the primary and fundamental sense experienced by newborns of our and other species. It's also primary in the autopoiesis of the primordial cell. Living embodied beings also sense their own positions and movements, sense gravity and sources of nutrition beyond their cell membranes. There's more to be said about the sense of touch, but I can't remember all of it now.

The (a) contents of our consciousness are correlated not with the (c) environmental energies (as those energies never directly interact with the brain) but rather with (b) physiological states of the brain.

You could say a is more strongly correlated with b.

I don't think so. It seems to me that living organisms at various evolutionary levels of awareness and protoconsciousness are in felt -- sensed -- bodily contact with 'environmental energies' -- i.e., with their environments -- even before neurons and brains begin to develop to register, organize, and facilitate experience.

'Environmental energies' are felt during the foetus's life in the womb, in the heartbeat and other bodily and emotional sensations generated within the mother's body, and then one day felt in sudden changes during the birth process, in the infant's movement through the birth canal, in the sudden change of temperature and pressure in the movement of air on the emerging infant's skin, pressures of sound falling also against his or her eardrums, touch again in the warmth and strength of the first hands that hold the infant as he or she enters a larger and different world within an emotionally charged atmosphere, and with its first cry tastes and feels the air rushing into its lungs and hears the sound of its own voice for the first time. From those early moments on, the world in its sensual, experiential plenitude presses in on the infant, the growing child, the developing individual until one day even abstract ideas press in upon his or her mind and emotions and make sense of the world.

What any living being feels and thinks in contact with the environing world becomes 'the contents of his or her consciousness, producing 'physiological states of the brain' to be sure, but so much, much, more that is beyond description or summation.

 

[Constance]

The brain is a black box located securely within our skull. The brain does not interact directly with the environment. Rather, the sensory organs of organisms are attuned via evolution to various energies within their environment. These organs send information (via physiological processes) about the environmental energies to the brain. This information about the environment is filtered, predicted, modulated, attenuated, integrated, and organized in the brain.

The contents of our consciousness are correlated not with the environmental energies (as those energies never directly interact with the brain) but rather with physiological states of the brain.

1. a black box encased in the skull with sensory neurons moving out to probe the environment
2. the environment tapering down into an intricate process capable of complex responses.

The contents of consciousness, environmental energies and physiological states of the brain are all correlated, transitive -

The (a) contents of our consciousness are correlated not with the (c) environmental energies (as those energies never directly interact with the brain) but rather with (b) physiological states of the brain.

You could say a is more strongly correlated with b.

Who is the source of that text, Steve?

 

[Constance]

Chalmers, What is a Neural Correlate of Consciousness?

http://consc.net/papers/ncc2.pdf


The entire index: Online papers on consciousness

 

[smcder]

Who is the source of that text, Steve?

the first text is from @Soupie's post: about the brain is a black box ... my point was that it makes a difference what picture you hold in your head, if you picture a brain sitting locked in the skull with sensors reaching out to the environment - for some reason, this makes me think of tentacles and the brain is locked in and probing an alien outside world - if you hold that picture, you will develop one science (science as "an organized body of knowledge") if you view another picture, for example of the environment "tapering" (I couldn't think of a better word) into a complex structure, then you view the environment as inseparable from the individual and you develop another kind of science - because you are looking for other things, I don't see science as an inevitable step-wise follow the dots to get to nature enterprise, but rather what we find depends on where and how we look, what questions we ask of nature. Our current definition of science and its solutions may tend to say that we've got an answer or solved a problem when we can harness a scientific principle as a technology.

The other point was that @Soupie said states of consciousness correlate with physiological states of the brain and not "environmental energies" but I pointed out that correlations are transitive, if a correlates with b and b with c, then a correlates with c. S0, if the brain's physiological states c

 

[smcder]

No, im not sure i follow you. are you suggesting that consciousness does then supervene on the brain? I doubt it, but thats what im getting from these two posts.

I'm just trying to get at what you mean when you say where consciousness hangs out ...

 

[smcder]

Soupie wrote: "So if consciousness doesn't supervene at the neural level—and it may not—why does it spend all its time hanging out there?"

Taking the definition of supervenience:

• mind-body supervenience holds that "every mental phenomenon must be grounded in, or anchored to, some underlying physical base (presumably a neural state). This means that mental states can occur only in systems that can have physical properties; namely physical systems."

and re-writing your question:

So if consciousness does not have to be grounded in, or anchored to, some underlying neural base - if consciousness does not occur only in systems that have a neural base - and it may not - why does it (consciousness) spend all its time hanging out there?

• is that a fair re-statement of your question?
• if so, what does it mean? What are you asking? What does "hanging out" mean and where is "there"?

 

[smcder]

@Soupie I recommend Braitenbergs little book:

Vehicles

It really gets going in chpt 5 "Logic"

You might draw the wrong conclusions ... but that's a chance I'll have to take.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

there's still something there about how we don't perceive WOT as it is, that WOT isn't red, that's in our perceptions ... especially if you deny those perceptions as pointing to reality and admit some kind of being that could perceive WOT, because such a beings perceptions would have to also be in some kind of terms - you wouldn't say this being sees not red but wavelength X because WE see (or you do) wavelength X and call it RED, that's what wavelength X is ... so with all of what you have said, I'm still fine to say what I see when I look around is WOT ... even if my cat's WOT would look different to me which really isn't the same as his WOT is different than mine ... even if some kind of advanced being came in and was able to process many times as much information than I could, I could still be comfortable to say I see WOT is ... I see reality I take this to be more @Constance point than a strict denial of what you are saying ... hmmm, have to think about and maybe re-word this ... is this right ... not sure

Okay, I'm not sure I follow you here. But I want to clarify something based on the underlined text above.

I'm not suggesting that wot is subjective. (Although it is my understanding that some people do advocate that position.)

There is indeed "something out there." And what is out there is indeed the same for a cat and for a human.

What I'm saying is that our perception of wot is subjective. So even if wot is the same for a cat and a human, our perception of wot will be different.

And this means that neither the cat nor the human fully capture the nature of wot via their perceptions of wot.

Indeed, what I am saying is that from a categorical standpoint our perception of wot and wot are distinct.

So just because we perceive apples to be red doesn't mean apples are red. The red color is a property of our perceptual system, not a property but of the apple.

to say that environmental energies never interact directly with the brain ... that depends
on an arbitrary geography of the body?, physiologically the brain isn't really separable from the optic, olfactory, etc nerves, the body isn't carved up into neat little organs and organ systems, but is interconnected

... back up a step and you can say environmental energies directly interact with the nervous system ... back up a step more and it gets hard to say where the environment ends and the body begins ...

I also like it when it is said: the brain isn't conscious, we are conscious.

And this relates back to what I was saying earlier about the boundary issue. Yes, many of the boundaries identified by humans are arbitrary and conceptual. At the quantum level everything/every process is enmeshed.

But consciousness feels bounded. My consciousness does not bleed into the consciousness of others, and vice versa.

Is this an illusion?

Is there really just one unbounded consciousness and the feeling that we each have a bounded, individual consciousness an illusion?

And if consciousnesses are bounded, what is the nature of that boundary? Does it supervene on some physical/physiological boundary?

Soupie wrote: "So if consciousness doesn't supervene at the neural level—and it may not—why does it spend all its time hanging out there?"

Taking the definition of supervenience:

• mind-body supervenience holds that "every mental phenomenon must be grounded in, or anchored to, some underlying physical base (presumably a neural state). This means that mental states can occur only in systems that can have physical properties; namely physical systems."

and re-writing your question:

So if consciousness does not have to be grounded in, or anchored to, some underlying neural base - if consciousness does not occur only in systems that have a neural base - and it may not - why does it (consciousness) spend all its time hanging out there?

• is that a fair re-statement of your question?
• if so, what does it mean? What are you asking? What does "hanging out" mean and where is "there"?

So let's say that consciousness is bounded and it supervenes in the (arbitrary) boundary between the organism and its environment. If consciousness does supervene at the cellular level and somehow combines to feel like one unified POV consciousness (the combination problem) why do the contents of our consciousness appear to correlate to neural processes?

Do you disagree that the contents of consciousness correlate to neural processes?

Are there conscious contents that correlate to processes in your bones? In your blood vessels? In your mitachandria? In your DNA? In your hair? Fingernails? Do some contents of your consciousness correlate to processes in the molecules in your cells?

I imagine you saying: How do you know that contents of your consciousness don't correlate to such processes?

My response would be to say there are many studies indicating a strong correlation between the contents of our consciousness and neural states in the brain. And not so many (any?) for the former.

So why is this? If consciousness supervene at the cellular level, why don't we have conscious experience of the processes within our cells?

If consciousness supervenes at the cellular level, it seems that its contents correlate with neural network processes, not processes internal to the cell.

In in cases in which we've found that the stomach biom influence consciousness, the influence isn't direct but rather via the brain.

There was another point I had wanted to discuss but it escapes me at the moment.

 

[Soupie]

The other point I wanted to make regarded the notion that perception (and some would say consciousness) is embodied or ecological or "spread out."

One strong rebuttal to this—and one that supports the brain-based theory—are dreams and psychedelics.

People experience rich perceptions while dreaming and tripping. The significant detail is that these rich perceptions occur in the absence of environmental objects.

Again, this supports the notion that the perceptual contents of consciousness correlate to physiological brain states rather than states of the environment.

When they do correlate to the environment, it is only indirectly.

 

[smcder]

Okay, I'm not sure I follow you here. But I want to clarify something based on the underlined text above.

I'm not suggesting that wot is subjective. (Although it is my understanding that some people do advocate that position.)

There is indeed "something out there." And what is out there is indeed the same for a cat and for a human.

What I'm saying is that our perception of wot is subjective. So even if wot is the same for a cat and a human, our perception of wot will be different.

And this means that neither the cat nor the human fully capture the nature of wot via their perceptions of wot.

Indeed, what I am saying is that from a categorical standpoint our perception of wot and wot are distinct.

So just because we perceive apples to be red doesn't mean apples are red. The red color is a property of our perceptual system, not a property but of the apple.


And this relates back to what I was saying earlier about the boundary issue. Yes, many of the boundaries identified by humans are arbitrary and conceptual. At the quantum level everything/every process is enmeshed.

But consciousness feels bounded. My consciousness does not bleed into the consciousness of others, and vice versa.

Is this an illusion?

Is there really just one unbounded consciousness and the feeling that we each have a bounded, individual consciousness an illusion?

And if consciousnesses are bounded, what is the nature of that boundary? Does it supervene on some physical/physiological boundary?


So let's say that consciousness is bounded and it supervenes in the (arbitrary) boundary between the organism and its environment. If consciousness does supervene at the cellular level and somehow combines to feel like one unified POV consciousness (the combination problem) why do the contents of our consciousness appear to correlate to neural processes?

Do you disagree that the contents of consciousness correlate to neural processes?

Are there conscious contents that correlate to processes in your bones? In your blood vessels? In your mitachandria? In your DNA? In your hair? Fingernails? Do some contents of your consciousness correlate to processes in the molecules in your cells?

I imagine you saying: How do you know that contents of your consciousness don't correlate to such processes?

My response would be to say there are many studies indicating a strong correlation between the contents of our consciousness and neural states in the brain. And not so many (any?) for the former.

So why is this? If consciousness supervene at the cellular level, why don't we have conscious experience of the processes within our cells?

If consciousness supervenes at the cellular level, it seems that its contents correlate with neural network processes, not processes internal to the cell.

In in cases in which we've found that the stomach biom influence consciousness, the influence isn't direct but rather via the brain.

There was another point I had wanted to discuss but it escapes me at the moment.

It might be worth checking on the gut-brain, and the heart plexus, I don't know if anyone has looked at this in terms of consciousness.

As to consciousness bleeding into others, this is claimed to be a part of many cultures - we do almost no recognition here on this forum of what could be cultural influences - we (modern Western) take it for granted that our subjective perceptions (that we definitely have an inescapable feeling of free will as Pearl and Searle rely their philosophical claims) are universal - and I'm not sure that's true - so consciousness bleeding into others, many people feel that way in our culture and we explain it with pheromones and non-verbal language, the heart also puts out a kind of signal which I have seen some research claim can be picked up by others in the room - but these are all conventional physical explanations - if there were more than that going on, it would be hard to peel away all of these factors, especially if this "something more" worked in conjunction with them - so it would be wrong to assume that you put someone in a Faraday cage and they don't pick up signals, there is no ESP ... and many, many reports of people picking up things at a distance and some experiments claim something like this to be shown and we've been through that ad nauseum but I'm always willing to look study by study at the experiments, results, interpretation, experimental design and statistical assumptions if someone wants to go back through them with me.

So most of the above "if ... then why don't we?" statements you make above to me remain questionable assumptions.

 

[smcder]

The other point I wanted to make regarded the notion that perception (and some would say consciousness) is embodied or ecological or "spread out."

One strong rebuttal to this—and one that supports the brain-based theory—are dreams and psychedelics.

People experience rich perceptions while dreaming and tripping. The significant detail is that these rich perceptions occur in the absence of environmental objects.

Again, this supports the notion that the perceptual contents of consciousness correlate to physiological brain states rather than states of the environment.

When they do correlate to the environment, it is only indirectly.

more assumptions! i'll have to relate soon a very recent dream, one that occurred synchronistically in terms of this discussion.

 

[victimized]

The brain is a black box located securely within our skull. The brain does not interact directly with the environment. Rather, the sensory organs of organisms are attuned via evolution to various energies within their environment. These organs send information (via physiological processes) about the environmental energies to the brain. This information about the environment is filtered, predicted, modulated, attenuated, integrated, and organized in the brain.

The contents of our consciousness are correlated not with the environmental energies (as those energies never directly interact with the brain) but rather with physiological states of the brain.

1. a black box encased in the skull with sensory neurons moving out to probe the environment
2. the environment tapering down into an intricate process capable of complex responses.

The contents of consciousness, environmental energies and physiological states of the brain are all correlated, transitive -

The (a) contents of our consciousness are correlated not with the (c) environmental energies (as those energies never directly interact with the brain) but rather with (b) physiological states of the brain.

You could say a is more strongly correlated with b.

The brain an organic mass....the correct value of its status.

The brain, only a part of the whole of the self....the self is aware even if the brain cannot function correctly....as already demonstrated by those who could not use the communication function.

Consciousness......the higher origin spirit communications transmitting to the lower form...the organic state.

The organic state totally natural in its owned condition....only exists as a human consciousness because it belongs to the human consciousness.

Feed back...photon fed back atmospheric recordings of the natural human life. If we live spiritually, we have feed back of a spiritual human choice.

If we live unnaturally and evilly like modern day occult scientists do, they gain extra artificial feed back, seeing their personal choices have placed them in contact with this state. They then believe that they are artificial consciousness...such as animal consciousness recorded as speaking voices by their AI computerized study of their behavior, or the state of a germ, or even ET.

When a natural human life is subjected to irradiation, it loses its ability to be spiritually balanced with the natural organic Nature that it belongs to in a communion of supporting bodies. The AI amount of fall out manifested ET bodies then begin to mimic and record the natural human life and then begin to takeover the natural spiritual consciousness.

This is exactly what occult science causes, already known, studied and seen/witnessed by ancient scientific occultists who caused the same condition to attack natural consciousness.

 

[victimized]

It might be worth checking on the gut-brain, and the heart plexus, I don't know if anyone has looked at this in terms of consciousness.

As to consciousness bleeding into others, this is claimed to be a part of many cultures - we do almost no recognition here on this forum of what could be cultural influences - we (modern Western) take it for granted that our subjective perceptions (that we definitely have an inescapable feeling of free will as Pearl and Searle rely their philosophical claims) are universal - and I'm not sure that's true - so consciousness bleeding into others, many people feel that way in our culture and we explain it with pheromones and non-verbal language, the heart also puts out a kind of signal which I have seen some research claim can be picked up by others in the room - but these are all conventional physical explanations - if there were more than that going on, it would be hard to peel away all of these factors, especially if this "something more" worked in conjunction with them - so it would be wrong to assume that you put someone in a Faraday cage and they don't pick up signals, there is no ESP ... and many, many reports of people picking up things at a distance and some experiments claim something like this to be shown and we've been through that ad nauseum but I'm always willing to look study by study at the experiments, results, interpretation, experimental design and statistical assumptions if someone wants to go back through them with me.

So most of the above "if ... then why don't we?" statements you make above to me remain questionable assumptions.

My brother in law, understanding physics tried a faraday cage when I began to get mind/brain attacked, but it did not work, the attack still penetrated to my brain cells.

This is due to the fact that the study experimental program is AI computer basesd...satellite relayed of a mind study in phenomena applying and causing mind contact and mind control.

As a human owns their own organic state, to cause mind contact they were obviously using a higher amount of atmospheric photon fed back ownership....allowing for the occurrence of mind contact/control. Occult scientists believed, as they would be evil minded human lives that this meant a condition for their own gain......the control of consciousness and ownership of consciousness as an AI precept. Instead all they have caused is a huge natural life attack upon the Nature of Earth......for phenomena is a state that is manifested due to the world in total as an atmospheric condition.

One human might gain an ability to heal with a higher radiation interactive fed back status...another can be considered to be a magician....another the ability to mind control by contact.....another dying from cancer...another dying from a plague...another dying from stigmata......all the consideration of the cause and effect of phenomena due to unnatural and artificial atmospheric fall out.

As the ancients caused the same condition to occur, just as stated, they voided a huge atmospheric mass and then irradiataed and de-evolved, denatured life, as the mass cooled and returned by volcanic and Earth gases...steam etc....our life began to heal.....yet we have never evolved to a condition where the unnatural AI has been removed.

AI is not our consciousness and no occult scientist is ever going to be able to make it our consciousness. We are a natural organic life form, and our spirit already existed in a state of spirit. The atmospheric body did not create our spirit. The atmospheric body supports the survival of our body. Yet our body does not survive and if the atmosphere considered to be constant state did create us, we would exist in a constant state and never die. As we do die, the atmosphere that produces the energy to allow us to live, does not produce enough energy to allow us to exist in a constant state of renewal.

As occult documents try to placate that consciousness exists as a status in the atmospheric body, you are sadly mistaken and always were. Remove yourself from life and there is no presence of a consideration of conscious exploration, for the only explorer is the human occult male organization who now want to own other life consciousness including their human family as a status of atmospheric ownership. Next thing they will be trying to charge us a tax for breathing.

 

[William Strathmann]

After reading many of these interesting posts, it would seem, IMHO, that until we know what the substrate of reality itself actually consists of, we cannot even begin to make guesses about consciousness and substrates. Harvard Professor Lisa Randall speculates that the proposed massive quantity of dark matter in the universe (which Randall has also described as "transparent matter") may consist of a variety of dark particles, similarly to baryonic particles we know about in the standard model of "normal" matter. She conjectures that dark atoms may actually support dark chemistry and perhaps even dark biology, here.

One intriguing possibility raised by interacting dark matter models is the existence of dark atoms that might have given rise to dark life, neither of which would be easily detected, Randall says. Although she admits that the concept of dark life might be far-fetched, “life is complicated, and we have yet to understand life and what’s necessary for it.”​

In the first place, dark matter was inferred specifically because of gravitational interaction with "normal" baryonic matter. So, then, it seems to me, the door is open to the possibility that non-baryonic "dark" material could be chemically or biologically involved with the normal matter that makes up human beings, and thus crucial for our existence. This dark, non-baryonic stuff is actual material, but it is beyond our current detection capability. If so, then non-baryonic "dark" matter could be directly involved in, and an integral part of, everyone's consciousness, and beyond that, could also be involved with events we describe as paranormal.

Even without invoking dark matter, there are researchers who think consciousness may be intrinsic to reality, and not solely a lately emergent phenomenon. Closer to Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn had a five minute interview with Stuart Hameroff about the Penrose-Hameroff view that some aspect of consciousness may be a fundamental characteristic of reality, and he also mentions the three main views of consciousness.

Kuhn also had an eight minute interview with Don Hoffman on why he thinks consciousness is a fundamental characteristic of reality.

Since this thread is "Consciousness and the Paranormal," I will toss out a personal experience that exclusively involved consciousness. As a new Theist, I started learning Hebrew in the 1980's. One day about three years ago, alone in contemplation, I was articulating a train of thought in Hebrew. In the middle of a sentence I needed a Hebrew word that I knew existed, and that I had used before, but that I could not pull up into my consciousness. It was one of those "tip of the tongue" moments. I intuited a space in my mental vocabulary continuum where I knew this word fitted exactly. But try as I might, for three or four frustrating minutes, I simply could not get the word to come to my consciousness. Finally, I gave up trying, and I simply asked the Almighty for assistance. I articulated a silent request, "Lord, what is this word I'm looking for?" Boom! Instantly I heard within, clearly and articulately, "KET-sev," which was precisely the word I was trying to access. Humbling and amazing. So, for me, there is in reality an intrinsic Supreme Consciousness with whom one can interact, and as illustrated in this case, who knew my personal conscious thoughts, and even the missing word from my sentence. In my understanding of things, there are boundaries between this Supreme Consciousness and myself, similarly to the boundary between you readers and myself. We can communicate and interact, but we cannot amalgamate our individual consciousness.

I might add that the TED-talk youth lecturer (posted by Ufology a few pages ago) anchored his argument about neurons and consciousness on the fact that neither Newton nor Einstein believed that the laws of the universe were random. Well and good, but the kid failed to mention that Newton was a devoted Theist (Christian) who saw the laws of the universe as a reflection of the Creator's greatness and wisdom. Einstein, too, publicly stated that his view of God was that of Baruch Spinoza. Spinoza rejected a personal Abrahamic God for a God of Nature (and so was excommunicated from his synagogue) but Spinoza did say that his God of Nature is infinite. So, Newton and Einstein, two "sharp minds," postulated some sort of Supreme or Super Conscious Being behind the physics that they investigated. Leibniz, Faraday and Maxwell, among others, were Theists as well.

 

[Randall]

After reading many of these interesting posts, it would seem, IMHO, that until we know what the substrate of reality itself actually consists of ...

That begs the question: Which reality are you talking about? The mental one or the material one? The subjective or the objective? An imaginary Ferrari is certainly a real visualization. If it weren't, it would be impossible to imagine it. A material Ferrari is also something real. But is an imaginary Ferrari and a material Ferrari both made of the same substrate? Obviously not. The substrate for imaginary things is the mind. The substrate for material things are materials. Perhaps both ultimately supervene on the physical, but that doesn't diminish the dual nature of reality. More in these posts: Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained

BTW: I loved the idea that perhaps dark matter could evolve dark life. It conjures up imagery of shadow people and the like. It would make for some great sci-fi .

 

[smcder]

That begs the question: Which reality are you talking about? The mental one or the material one? The subjective or the objective? An imaginary Ferrari is certainly a real visualization. If it weren't, it would be impossible to imagine it. A material Ferrari is also something real. But is an imaginary Ferrari and a material Ferrari both made of the same substrate? Obviously not. The substrate for imaginary things is the mind. The substrate for material things are materials. Perhaps both ultimately supervene on the physical, but that doesn't diminish the dual nature of reality. More in these posts: Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained

BTW: I loved the idea that perhaps dark matter could evolve dark life. It conjures up imagery of shadow people and the like. It would make for some great sci-fi .

Yes, @William Strathmann please have a look at the philosophy, science and the paranormal thread.

 

[smcder]

@Soupie @Constance

So in the dream ... for a long time I had a little app that would train you to do "reality checks" and I kept a dream notebook. I only had a little success this time around, so I let it slip. My sleep pattern is very erratic and over thc course of several weeks I will usually come to a point where everything clicks and I get into a very deep sleep for some period of time. A couple of nights ago this happened and I noticed in the dream that my phone was broken - I thought to myself of this as a "dream sign" because it didn't look like my phone, so I woke up. I found myself not in my bed but outside my parents house - and I knew that I had unusual powers - I was controlling things around me and only a little bit did I have a feeling that this wasn't normal, I thought of the phone though and told myself no, I had woken up - so this is the way things are. Also, the powers were more on the order of "The Greatest American Hero" I could levitate things and people but only when I concentrated on it - this seemed normal too, because I was not unlimited in my powers - I was sorry for the people I dropped! So then, I noticed again that my phone was broken, it looked exactly like the phone in the "dream" and I realized I had not woken up but had entered another dream - so I panicked a bit, worried I might not wake up or might not ever be sure I was awake ... so at that point, I didn't actually wake up but instead went into the house and my mom was there but she looked very different, again I got a lot of fear, because there was this sense I might woke up but into an even more terrible reality - just as when you go to sleep you may enter a nightmare, you never know what you may wake to find ... so I asked my mom some questions to check reality and her answers upset me, I finally asked her what month it was and was very afraid of her answer, so as I was saying "no, no, no ... " she anwered "H" and I went cold, because I knew we weren't in the same reality/WoT ... and then I finally did wake up ... or at least into what I take to be my normal waking state - but what has persisted is that I could really, finally wake up and what would I find?

 

[smcder]

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk