Consciousness and the Paranormal

[smcder]

. . . on page nine now . . .

 

[Soupie]

So I don't think we necessarily disagree

I don't disagree that we actually agree more than we disagree.

Since I view objective reality as fundamentally analog, I therefore consider both matter/energy and its relation to other matter/energy as objective reality. If I understand you correctly, you only consider matter/energy in the "here and now" (an undefined unit of measurement) as objective reality and you consider its relation to other matter/energy in the "here and now" to be objective information.

But that brings up an interesting point: If a tree falls down in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Objective reality isn't matter/energy, it's the interaction of matter/energy. Indeed, some physicists argue that the bedrock of reality is raw information.

@Tyger summed it up well when he posted: The simple concept of the organism as a formed machine is then replaced by the more general concept of it as a dynamical system.

My argument is that all of objective reality is a dynamical system. I would go so far as to say, unless matter/energy interacted with - "observed" - itself, it literally wouldn't exist. Objective reality = Interaction. No interaction, no objective reality.

According to consensus science, particles in the universe are in a default state of potential, and when they interact with other particles, i.e., when they are observed by humans, they are realized. To me, this means that objective reality is an analog, cybernetic, dynamical system that cannot be digitized/reduced/frozen but must be considered as a whole.

Actually you were the one who mentioned particles as they related to vibrations and temperature.

I said that in response to your statement that "The only thing that is objectively real are the physical particles in the here and now."

My point is that according to consensus science those physical particles are movement. Or, said differently, particles are information.

It may go something like this: Movement of [strings?] > Interaction of [strings?] = Subatomic Point Particles > Movement of Subatomic Point Particles > Interaction of Subatomic Particles > Matter/Energy > Movement of Matter/Energy > Interaction of Matter/Energy = Objective Reality

Also, I don't think there is a "here and now;" it seems that objective reality, rather, is composed of past, present, and future all at once.

In an effort to make this discussion relevant to this thread... again, I think this discussion about what objective reality entails underlines how intertwined it is with each of our own private subjective realities and the consensus subjective reality of the majority.

Definitions of Spirituality

@Constance

Spirituality, for me, is the sense of the depth of our existential being as an integrated part of the world's being. Various types of human experience provide partial and temporary access to extensions of the integrated being in which we participate into regions beyond the margins of what is available to us in ordinary perception.

This is a topic I've been wanting to discuss here, so I'll have to go back and read this discussion!

 

[Tyger]

@Tyger summed it up well when he posted: The simple concept of the organism as a formed machine is then replaced by the more general concept of it as a dynamical system.
My argument is that all of objective reality is a dynamical system. I would go so far as to say, unless matter/energy interacted with - "observed" - itself, it literally wouldn't exist. Objective reality = Interaction. No interaction, no objective reality.

According to consensus science, particles in the universe are in a default state of potential, and when they interact with other particles, i.e., when they are observed by humans, they are realized. To me, this means that objective reality is an analog, cybernetic, dynamical system that cannot be digitized/reduced/frozen but must be considered as a whole.

An example from a colleague regarding our experience of 'reality': "Our experience of the visual world emerges out of the interplay of 'inner light' - intentionality, learning and thought - with the light of the sun and other sources of illumination. It becomes clear that our 'inner light' can color what we see, but this 'light' becomes ever clearer and more illuminating when we consciously and carefully attend to the manifold and changing aspects of the phenomena we encounter."

The difference between the conscious observer (scientist) and the 'layman'. I say such terms advisedly - point being that 'what we see' - each of us - both outer but especially as illuminated inwardly by our 'inner light' as described above - is different. We do not know or acknowledge that because the general terms are assumed 'the same' when defined by words and not experience. (Every person's experience of a word is different based on experience - not other words).

I am living with a one-year old baby on the verge of language. Her word for doggie right now only encompasses the big white and black furry creature who she uses as a pillow and that nuzzles her face. She has some understanding that other such creatures might be 'doggies', too, regardless if a furry black-and-white creature is a cat. What she can 'see' is the result of an outer experience and an inner activity regarding it. The two are inseparable.

 

[Soupie]

You might search the web for subtle or etheric bodies - on this thread, I posted a transcript of John Hagelin on Buddha at the Gas Pump podcast discussing "shadow matter" in relation to etheric bodies -that might be of some interest, you could also try an image search for any of these terms to bring up diagrams. ... Let us know what you find out.

I had asked how people gather sensory data during OBEs if they don't have a body (eyes, ears, nose, etc.).

Based on reading a few accounts from this archive, it appears that many (most?) people experience having a non-physical body during an OBE, or absent that, they reported their 5 senses working perfectly and/or better. I do get the sense though that not everyone experiences a non-physical body. (I don't know how reliable these accounts are. I'm not sure where to find more reliable ones.)

 

[Tyger]

Tyger has the dubious distinction of being the first person on the Paracast to make it onto my ignore list.

We will see how accurate this statement is because if Randall has done so, he will not be able to read my responding text.

Since Randall has chosen to say this - and I know he is keen to get my attention, hence the provocative mention of me (sigh' you gotta love 'em, he's so transparent) - I feel it incumbent upon me to give some context: Randall chose to involve a moderator at one point in our happy posting history here on the chat site. The result was - after an 'investigation' into my posts - that I had done nothing amiss. [Keep this in mind - if you don't square with Ufology/Randall, he will try to silence you in other ways at his disposal - but the particular moderator I dealt with was a fair-minded sort, which is why I am still here.] The result was that a moderator suggested to Ufology that he put me on his ignore list if my posts were that disquieting to his sensibilities. Which apparently he has done, if we are to believe this announcement. Happy days!

I am assuming that what Randall is trying to do is to indicate that in actually doing a shout-out to me in your post, you risk hob-nobbing with someone of 'dubious' merit, someone he deems so unique in my sins that he has chosen to put me on ignore. I am damned with faint praise, I think we can say - though there is something to be said for the distinction. Personally, I think there should be an award for this achievement. Maybe a little button, at the least. [I am really so innocuous that to have achieved this is akin to being included in the Seven Wonders of Internet Chat.]

Anyway, it's a rather sad day that Randall chose to go this route as I think he and I had some interesting repartee happening occasionally. Being overtly antagonistic - but in a pleasant kind of way - can be pepper-to-the-pot in a good way. But so it is - the dye is cast - and there I sit, the sole name on Randall's ignore list.

 

[Constance]

Hmm, maybe I can get placed on Randall's 'ignore list' too. Let's see.

soupie wrote:

Also, I don't think there is a "here and now;" it seems that objective reality, rather, is composed of past, present, and future all at once.

Randall (Ufology) responded:

Though a common theme in pop-science, that idea that objective reality is composed of past, present, and future all at once, is logically flawed in any respect other than a mathematical or abstract sense. If you think otherwise, where is your evidence?

"Where is your evidence?" A question more people here should be asking you, Randall, given the many unique (actually bizarre) physical certainties you claim without ever providing their scientific pedigrees. Your most recent post responding to soupie is a good example, but there was another yesterday I think that similarly left me wondering what planet you are from.

 

[manxman]

constance i really like this thread, not for its total content, as i dont really get it, im a simple sort, everything is black or white 99% of the time, i would of consigned all of this to the woo bin, its the depth of the knowledge, or rather the research i really like.

for me, we live we die, anything else will be an unexpected bonus, but i didnt really appreciate the self, the I in me, who am I, what am I, whats its all about, wheres/what's the reason/purpose of it all, theres always a purpose with nature that goes further than just replication of the species i am pondering on.

pretty interesting.

 

[Soupie]

Firstly, I'm not sure what the posting etiquette is here at the Paracast regarding on/off topic posts. I fear we are way off topic. If I'm out-of-line, I hope someone will let me know.

Objective reality is the physical realm in which we exist, whereas things like relationships between various elements within that realm are based on concepts or ideas, and are therefore mental constructs. ... Neither are relevant to our discussion of what constitutes an objective versus a subjective reality because what we're talking about is the difference between physical constructs and mental constructs.

I think we may be talking about different concepts.

I'm certainly not talking about "the difference between physical constructs and mental constructs." I'm talking about objective reality. Reality is defined on Wikipedia via the Oxford English Dictionary as: The state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

At the risk of prolonging this discussion, haha, "the state of things" essentially means "both matter/energy and its relation to other matter/energy." In other words, we're not just talking about things, but also their state.

What you seem to be describing is, simply, physical existence (which Wikipedia redirects to "nature."). Nature/Physical Existence: Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

A particle itself is only information in the sense that it belongs to a set of things that is organized in a meaningful way to someone or something. It is not in and of itself information. Rather it is a "thing".

I think you're missing my point (a moot point at this point): You're saying that OR consists of only things and not the state of things. You say that a particle is a thing; what I'm saying is that a particle is not a thing, but the state of a thing. What thing? Perhaps a field, perhaps a wave, perhaps a string.

From Wikipedia: In string theory, the different types of observed elementary particles arise from the different quantum states of these strings.

A particle is the quantum state of a vibrating string. A particle is information about the state of the string. (And if not a string, something else.)

Though a common theme in pop-science, that idea that objective reality is composed of past, present, and future all at once, is logically flawed in any respect other than a mathematical or abstract sense.

Like your appeal to relativity, you're viewing OR from the perspective of a local observer. To us humans, reality appears to consist of the "here and now" but that may simply be our Subjective Reality.

 

[smcder]

Firstly, I'm not sure what the posting etiquette is here at the Paracast regarding on/off topic posts. I fear we are way off topic. If I'm out-of-line, I hope someone will let me know.

. . .

Threads really do seem to meander, this should link to the first post where Tyger defined the thread:


Initially I was going to call this thread 'Consciousness and the Occult' but the title it now bears was recommended instead and I have followed the recommendation.

I did so primarily because 'occult' - a very decent and serviceable word - has been - in a sense - corrupted through extensive use in recent years in various and - in some instances - unfortunate ways. It is like the word 'gay' now being used nearly exclusively in one particular sense and not in the sense of 'happy', it's usual meaning some decades back. Thus does our language shift and morph over time - a dynamic language, at the very least. However, even so, I will likely myself use the word 'occult' every now and again, and how I am using it should become clear over the course of my posts.

I will begin the discussion with an excerpt from a paper delivered at a symposium.

. . .

No 'rules' or constraints to this thread except good-will in the spirit of classic intellectual debate - which means it will likely be pretty free-ranging, with many 'threads' of thought being pursued simultaneously - part of the fun of such discussions.

So the thread is pretty broadly defined but it has stayed around issues of consciousness, out of body experiences, etc etc - I'm still working up a summary of all the links and major ideas . . . but it has definitely covered a lot of ground . . .

There is precedent that the person who started the thread decides what is off-topic but I don't know what the actual Paracast forum rule is . . .

 

[Tyger]

Firstly, I'm not sure what the posting etiquette is here at the Paracast regarding on/off topic posts. I fear we are way off topic. If I'm out-of-line, I hope someone will let me know.

Not out-of-line at all imo. The thread can sustain wide divergences - though I believe the thread is about to split amoeba-like into other threads as some feel they want to explore particular sub-topics. Doesn't mean this thread is 'over' just meandering slower.

 

[Tyger]

"Where is your evidence?" A question more people here should be asking you, Randall, given the many unique (actually bizarre) physical certainties you claim without ever providing their scientific pedigrees. Your most recent post responding to soupie is a good example, but there was another yesterday I think that similarly left me wondering what planet you are from.

Have to agree. The dismissal out-of-hand of so many intellectual avenues without any intellectual back-up raises questions as to purpose and intent. Begins to look like a provocateur, to put it in fancy language. Gums up the conversation.

 

[smcder]

I had asked how people gather sensory data during OBEs if they don't have a body (eyes, ears, nose, etc.).

Based on reading a few accounts from this archive, it appears that many (most?) people experience having a non-physical body during an OBE, or absent that, they reported their 5 senses working perfectly and/or better. I do get the sense though that not everyone experiences a non-physical body. (I don't know how reliable these accounts are. I'm not sure where to find more reliable ones.)

I'm up to about page 13 on the thread summary and will post this maybe when I get to page 20 - but have a look at around page 13 of this thread (and a little before and after):

Consciousness and the Paranormal | Page 13 | The Paracast Community Forums

we have lots of links to peer-reviewed research on Psi/remote viewing etc - I think these may be of interest to your questions above. I think I also mentioned the John Hagelin post on Shadow Matter/subtle bodies - ? If not, here is the direct link. I am also interested in the subtle/non-physical body - so let me know if you come across any other good info.

Consciousness and the Paranormal | Page 37 | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[trainedobserver]

You may leave this thread when you can snatch the pebble from its ethereal hand.

 

[smcder]

You may leave this thread when you can snatch the pebble from its ethereal hand.

. . . with chop-sticks

 

[trainedobserver]

all this talk of hallucinations in 'sane people yada yada, how many people here have ever hallucinated, how here know someone who has hallucinated, nil and nil, ffs get a grip people.

There is no difference between a hallucination and normal experience. The mechanism is the same. Your experience of seeing these words displayed before you now is rendered in your brain in the same manner as a pink elephant would be created and presented to your conciousness.

 

[manxman]

If an alien comes to you and asks, "What is the most important question we can ask humanity

are we here ?

and what is the best possible answer they will give?

no its too far for you to travel, period, get this fakin jerk outta here man.

 

[Soupie]

Reality is defined on Wikipedia via the Oxford English Dictionary as: The state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

@ufology sed: In this context the only part of the Oxford definition that applies is the phrase, "The state of things as they actually exist ..." However the qualifier, "... "rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." is not applicable to the context of our discussion.

On the contrary, the OED definition captures exactly the concept of Objective and Subjective Realities that I was conveying.

The state of things as they actually exist (objective reality), rather than as they may appear or might be imagined (subjective private and consensus reality).

I believe you are either misunderstanding or misapplying the terms objective and subjective. You appear to be equating objective with objects and subjective with concepts. That is not the proper meaning of those terms. According to God Google, the terms are defined as follows:

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Note that the term "objective" has nothing to do with objects, and the term "subjective" doesn't directly have anything to do with concepts.

Now this will really blow your mind!

Objective Reality - Some people think bunnies are cute.

Subjective Consensus Reality - Bunnies are cute!

Subjective Private Reality - Bunnies are evil!!!

We are only aware of it by way of our sensory perception, and from the study of that, we can safely conclude that there is an objective reality out there beyond the confines of our immediate physical selves.

I don't know about "safely" concluding, but yes, I agree. Where we disagree is in regards to limiting reality to only physical objects at any given Planck Unit.

 

[smcder]

@ufology

. . .

Now this will really blow your mind!

Objective Reality - Some people think bunnies are cute.

Subjective Consensus Reality - Bunnies are cute!

Subjective Private Reality - Bunnies are evil!!!

I don't know about "safely" concluding, but yes, I agree. Where we disagree is in regards to limiting reality to only physical objects at any given Planck Unit.

That is not the proper meaning of those terms. According to God Google, the terms are defined as follows:

ROFL

Also, Bunnies are especially relevant here.

 

[smcder]

There is no difference between a hallucination and normal experience. The mechanism is the same. Your experience of seeing these words displayed before you now is rendered in your brain in the same manner as a pink elephant would be created and presented to your conciousness.

I know someone is going to ask you this - but has this been shown to be true? That it is the exact same pathways and processes . . . ?

 

[smcder]

On the neurobiology of hallucinations

However, hallucinations are not only associated with illness but can also occur in healthy individuals. For example, data from 6 community survey studies in various countries indicate that 7%–30% of children and adolescents report experiencing hallucinations.

. . . of course you could argue that adolescence is a form of illness . . .