• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive free Amazon gift cards. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Do mental expectations create the effects of physical reality?



Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
yes, i wanted to go back to that thread and pick that point up again, but i'm just a little mentally bogged down by the implications that everything is an illusion and that our sensory experience is not as "consciousness" oriented as I once thought. this is plaguing me a little, making both the purpose of poetry and source of UFO sightings dissolve into the unknowable ether.

I honestly don't think this is an illusion as much as I do an interactive interpretation based on cyclical reflection. I think of consciousness in the same way one might speculate about black matter or dark energy. It's a relationship thing. Nothing in our universe is self contained but rather is an interactive interpretation via our natural orientation.

Science often brings up the amazing point that despite the immense amount of understanding that nature has afforded us via experimentation and studies, we simply have no clue what holds it all together. This stuff we refer to as baryonic matter is extremely puzzling stuff. There is simply no reasonable explanation as to why all those atoms and molecules don't just fly apart in a trillion different directions right this minute.

IMO, the secret is consciousness. Consciousness has no ability to think. It does not hold knowledge. It is not experience. It is the medium in which the human mind's perceptions of everything find meaning due to our own willful explorations and experiences.

when you say that you KNEW of both objects, do you mean that you knew of UFO's and so whatever the stimulus was that prompted your shared sighting, that it was coloured by previous knowledge? more than "cultural frontloading," there seems to be a lot going on in the mix from the point of some unique, and original stimulus that senses perceive as some strange outline but the brain conjures up the rest and fills in the details etc.. i'm trying to understand if there is something real on the edge of our senses, that is all around us, but that is invisible to us because we have no previous knowledge vs. those who might have some knowledge of objects and then the distortion that is the mental TV screen projects the illusion of reality in the way that it does combined with that previous knowledge.

The emboldened statement above IMO, is a hypothetical overview of our cognitive relationship to consciousness. We are perceptively interactive within it continually. As cognitive beings, we function on many different levels. We have knowledge within our memories, but we have infinity within our imaginations. Therefore infinity is not a property of consciousness, but rather one of inherent cognitive interpretation via our natural orientation within consciousness. That orientation is the mechanistic part of us. Our limited vision and light spectrum. The precise electrical firing and cycling of the brain and all the relative illusions that time and relativity afford us.

EDIT: Duh! I forgot to answer your question about my experience. I recognized precisely what I had already become aware of via UFO reporting. One Roger Marsh report, and one video of what it was I witnessed, or something very similar.


in that way, anyone who doesn't have knowledge of certain things simply would not see them or they would be transformed, and things that do appear, our brain tries to turn it into something familiar...maybe they weren't airships at all they saw a century or so ago? maybe it was just the best thing the brains of that era could conjure up and turn them into.

It might seem that way, but IMO (remember, that's all this is) it doesn't factor out that way due to experimentation. In fact, it almost works the exact opposite. Always reflect on the double slit experiment. Observation seems to be a gateway for an interactive informational processing rooted within the matrix of our cognitive determinations. The mind does not "make up" reality, but rather assembles it based on the unity that the human condition's continuity represents mechanistically.

it's puzzling, this whole reality thing. all i know for sure is that my senses can be very easily confused all on their own and that most of my life is running on autopilot. i'm starting to see the value of buddhist mindfulness on a whole new level now, that and learning all there is to learn, so i can perceive reality just that little bit more accurately.

Yes and no IMO. Yes, this stuff we call reality is COOL and extremely mind boggling!! However, when we adopt the Buddhist way we seek to empty ourselves, not fill ourselves with knowledge. True enlightenment is inherently revealed, NEVER learned. Learning is very, very good however as it demonstrates and thereby develops our ability to reflect as sentient creatures. This is the most important part of learning. The building and development of the cognitive facility that we possess through meditation, reflection, & contemplation. However to progress, we must reflect, and if we are continually devouring books and all the knowledge they contain, we are left with a bloated and confused waterlogged sponge. That my friend is the nature of the Toa/Doa. Less is more.
 
Last edited:

andrewgarrett

Paranormal Novice
There is a truth to this, yes. In a grand way, mind creates everything.
Most people can't make a rock move with their mind. A lot of people believe that if they just believe or expect what they want, it'll eventually happen. Sometimes it does, but hopefully in time we understand and come up against the fact of we are not the only influence upon reality and not everything we want is for the best. So, who and what holds the most sway?

There are positive and negative influences and persuasions in life.

Yet as I understand it, a greater Mind, called God, set this all in motion at the beginning of time by which I mean the physical universe.
 

Trajanus

Paranormal Adept
There is a truth to this, yes. In a grand way, mind creates everything.

But mind is the outcome of an evolutionary process.

Yet as I understand it, a greater Mind, called God, set this all in motion at the beginning of time by which I mean the physical universe.
Quantum uncertainty enabled the Universe to arise spontaneously without external intervention.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
But mind is the outcome of an evolutionary process.
Yes, the argument from subjective idealism tends to fall apart when we take into account that so far as we know, human minds have been around far less time that the rest of the universe. I recently hit on that with one of our guests, who then moved the goalpost to some other consciousness being here before us. Maybe that's true, but there's no way to know for sure, and as you suggest, minds are part of an evolutionary process that implies they came later after the building blocks for it came into being.
Quantum uncertainty enabled the Universe to arise spontaneously without external intervention.
Hmm. Cosmology can get really convoluted. For example which universe are we talking about exactly? I've updated the article on that and will hopefully have my site launched by the end of the month, but for now, if we go with the context of the word universe that astronomers call the observable universe, which we seem to be a part of, we can't be sure that it came into being spontaneously. It might have. Then again maybe it was created by some universe creator external to the observable universe.

💡 Notice I didn't use the word "God" there. It may be the case that there is a universe creator. But that doesn't require it to be deified.
 

andrewgarrett

Paranormal Novice
But mind is the outcome of an evolutionary process.


Quantum uncertainty enabled the Universe to arise spontaneously without external intervention.
This is an assertion which I take to refer to biological evolution. Mind does not necessarily come from this process. Extant mind could have, and in my understanding and experience did, create the physical universe by setting its forces in motion.
Our understanding of quantum mechanics is barely over a century old. We don't even know why it appears to be so accurate, really. The observer effect which constitutes a major part of it is ill understood. See the work of Dean Radin for example:

As his experiments show, mind can indeed affect matter, even at a great distance. This is demonstrated to the six sigma confidence level meaning this occurs at over one in a billion odds against chance.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
This is an assertion which I take to refer to biological evolution. Mind does not necessarily come from this process.
We don't have any evidence that it comes from any other process.
Extant mind could have, and in my understanding and experience did, create the physical universe by setting its forces in motion.
So what mind is that exactly? Because humans didn't come along until billions of years later, and there is no evidence ( zero ) none — that before that, we were discarnate entities floating around without bodies for billions of years.

Our understanding of quantum mechanics is barely over a century old. We don't even know why it appears to be so accurate, really. The observer effect which constitutes a major part of it is ill understood.
You're right that the observer effect is "ill understood". It's constantly misrepresented by purveyors of quantum woo. The "effect" is about measurement not consciousness. I've looked into it deeply. The machines are sealed and humans cannot even see the particles. It's a demonstration about how detection causes a collapse of the wave function. Consciousness is irrelevant. The experiment can be run with or without humans present and get no collapse of the wave function. BTW Radin's experiment also shows no collapse of the wave function.
See the work of Dean Radin for example ...

There is Skeptical side worth noting:


As his experiments show, mind can indeed affect matter, even at a great distance. This is demonstrated to the six sigma confidence level meaning this occurs at over one in a billion odds against chance.

None of Radin's work is sufficient to conclude causation from correlation, but it is suggestive and tempting to do so. As far as I'm willing to go is that at least Radin is making what appears to be a sincere effort to do some real science. I'd like to see these experiments continue with the new generation of AI chips and quantum computers doing the tests.

We don't have all the answers to exactly how or why consciousness exists, and we may never have those answers. I seem to be moving toward New Mysterianism. We have two other long threads that also deal with it ( just so you know I'm not just being dismissive ). It's all very interesting.


 
Last edited:

andrewgarrett

Paranormal Novice
We don't have any evidence that it comes from any other process.

So what mind is that exactly, because humans didn't come along until billions of years later, and there is no evidence ( zero ) none — that before that, we were discarnate entities floating around without bodies for billions of years.


You're right that the observer effect is "ill understood". It's constantly misrepresented by purveyors of quantum woo. The "effect" is about measurement not consciousness. I've looked into it deeply. The machines are sealed and humans cannot even see the particles. It's a demonstration about how detection causes a collapse of the wave function. Consciousness is irrelevant. The experiment can be run with or without humans present and get no collapse of the wave function. BTW Radin's experiment also shows no collapse of the wave function.


There is Skeptical side worth noting:




None of Radin's work is sufficient to conclude causation from correlation, but it is suggestive and tempting to do so. As far as I'm willing to go is that at least Radin is making what appears to be a sincere effort to do some real science. I'd like to see these experiments continue with the new generation of AI chips and quantum computers doing the tests.

We don't have all the answers to exactly how or why consciousness exists, and we may never have those answers. I seem to be moving toward New Mysterianism. We have two other long threads that also deal with it ( just so you know I'm not just being dismissive ). It's all very interesting.



I have the evidence of my experience. There are things the mind can do that would astound you. I don' mean this in any way to belittle you, or anyone else, but to say I have been astounded beyond my previous conceptions of what was truly possible.

I also know of the evidence of veridical past life memories and life after life sessions. This was rigorously done research.

When you say there was no collapse of the wave function, you are simply denying the results of his experiment.

I know how many can be skeptical of these kinds of things. It's outside of their range of experience.

As Shakespeare said, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio."

I love Carl Sagan as I presume you do too.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
I have the evidence of my experience. There are things the mind can do that would astound you. I don' mean this in any way to belittle you, or anyone else, but to say I have been astounded beyond my previous conceptions of what was truly possible.
The mind is amazing – no question.
I also know of the evidence of veridical past life memories and life after life sessions. This was rigorously done research.
If someone somehow gains information that matches that of a dead person, that is not evidence that they are that person living in the present. It is only evidence that by some not-yet-understood process, information has been acquired by another new and completely separate individual who has their own life and experiences as well.
When you say there was no collapse of the wave function, you are simply denying the results of his experiment.
Actually, that isn't the case. in fact you can see for yourself that the wave function doesn't collapse in the experiments. What is being used as evidence is a statistical anomaly related to the peak interference pattern caused by photons passing through the double slit. Not everyone gets the basics of the double slit experiment, and it gets even weirder from there, but purveyors of quantum woo capitalize on that non-comprehension to justify wacky claims.

Radin is out there on that fringe, and walking a really fine line that the believers tend to take over the edge, and Radin himself seems to encourage going over that edge. But unlike those who simply make claims based on assumptions, he is actually trying to get scientifically valid evidence. That's why I say his work is very interesting ( though far from conclusive ). It's up there with others like Michael Persinger, who was also unfairly demonized by skeptics.
I know how many can be skeptical of these kinds of things. It's outside of their range of experience.
And people should be skeptical. However they shouldn't be dismissive or closed-minded. I appreciate your participation here and enjoy exploring this stuff. Personally, I hope Radin has found a thread he can pull on in those statistics that will lead to more serious practical breakthroughs.
As Shakespeare said, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio."
Actually, it's the fictional character Hamlet who speaks the phrase: "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio." Shakespeare is just the name of the author of the play, and some people aren't even sure about that. The point of the quote is also open to some interpretation.

Logically, based on a literal interpretation, I would say it is a truism, like saying that Earth is bigger than the the Moon. The problem is that while it may be true, it doesn't explain anything. At best, it seems to suggest that we ought not think ourselves so well informed that we are blinded to the possibility of explanations that are beyond our knowledge.

Another quote that counters the above comes from the fictional character Dana Scully, the down-to-Earth sidekick of agent Fox Mulder:

Mulder:
Why is it still so hard for you to believe, even when all the evidence suggests extraordinary phenomena?

Scully:
Because sometimes ...

Mulder:
What?

Scully:
... looking for extreme possibilities makes you blind to the probable explanation right in front of you.

I love Carl Sagan as I presume you do too.
Cosmos is definitely a classic, and Sagan a bit of an enigmatic character. Lastly please don't think I'm being dismissive. I've had enough experiences myself to know that the world is way stranger than most people think it is. That's why I'm here doing this ( it sure ain't for the pay ), and the world needs open minded people like yourself who have also had their own experiences to be inspired by them and feel confident about sharing them so that we ( humanity ) might come to better understand them.
 
Last edited:

Trajanus

Paranormal Adept
Hmm. Cosmology can get really convoluted. For example which universe are we talking about exactly? I've updated the article on that and will hopefully have my site launched by the end of the month, but for now, if we go with the context of the word universe that astronomers call the observable universe, which we seem to be a part of, we can't be sure that it came into being spontaneously. It might have. Then again maybe it was created by some universe creator external to the observable universe.

💡 Notice I didn't use the word "God" there. It may be the case that there is a universe creator. But that doesn't require it to be deified.

If a Universe can't arise spontaneously (and ultimately engender a far advanced intelligence--the rational or believable source of a "universe creator") where would a "universe creator" come from?
Btw while Sagan did a nice service by popularizing astronomy, I don't love a UFO skeptic. :)
 

andrewgarrett

Paranormal Novice
The mind is amazing – no question.

If someone somehow gains information that matches that of a dead person, that is not evidence that they are that person living in the present. It is only evidence that by some not-yet-understood process, information has been acquired by another new and completely separate individual who has their own life and experiences as well.

Actually, that isn't the case. in fact you can see for yourself that the wave function doesn't collapse in the experiments. What is being used as evidence is a statistical anomaly related to the peak interference pattern caused by photons passing through the double slit. Not everyone gets the basics of the double slit experiment, and it gets even weirder from there, but purveyors of quantum woo capitalize on that non-comprehension to justify wacky claims.

Radin is out there on that fringe, and walking a really fine line that the believers tend to take over the edge, and Radin himself seems to encourage going over that edge. But unlike those who simply make claims based on assumptions, he is actually trying to get scientifically valid evidence. That's why I say his work is very interesting ( though far from conclusive ). It's up there with others like Michael Persinger, who was also unfairly demonized by skeptics.

And people should be skeptical. However they shouldn't be dismissive or closed-minded. I appreciate your participation here and enjoy exploring this stuff. Personally, I hope Radin has found a thread he can pull on in those statistics that will lead to more serious practical breakthroughs.

Actually, it's the fictional character Hamlet who speaks the phrase: "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio." Shakespeare is just the name of the author of the play, and some people aren't even sure about that. The point of the quote is also open to some interpretation.

Logically, based on a literal interpretation, I would say it is a truism, like saying that Earth is bigger than the the Moon. The problem is that while it may be true, it doesn't explain anything. At best, it seems to suggest that we ought not think ourselves so well informed that we are blinded to the possibility of explanations that are beyond our knowledge.

Another quote that counters the above comes from the fictional character Dana Scully, the down-to-Earth sidekick of agent Fox Mulder:

Mulder:
Why is it still so hard for you to believe, even when all the evidence suggests extraordinary phenomena?

Scully:
Because sometimes ...

Mulder:
What?

Scully:
... looking for extreme possibilities makes you blind to the probable explanation right in front of you.


Cosmos is definitely a classic, and Sagan a bit of an enigmatic character. Lastly please don't think I'm being dismissive. I've had enough experiences myself to know that the world is way stranger than most people think it is. That's why I'm here doing this ( it sure ain't for the pay ), and the world needs open minded people like yourself who have also had their own experiences to be inspired by them and feel confident about sharing them so that we ( humanity ) might come to better understand them.

I appreciate what you've stated and shared. I invite you to reconsider what you've said.

"At best, it seems to suggest that we ought not think ourselves so well informed that we are blinded to the possibility of explanations that are beyond our knowledge."

My experience is that it is true at least for myself, whosoever wrote the play.

You can deny the existence of Knowledge. You can say it is all biochemistry. You can say it is all the hopes and dreams of a suffering animal who is aware of its own mortality and its own suffering. You can make any argument you want and claim great approval from others who are of like mind. But you cannot destroy Knowledge.

It just will remain silent within you until you come to your senses, until you have some kind of experience where you begin to realize that you are more than flesh and blood, that you are greater than your psychology and whatever current stream of thoughts are preoccupying you in the moment.

And though you may not have any notion of Heaven, you know you are connected to something greater beyond the physical realm, beyond your visual range. Beyond all the things that dominate your current awareness and existence, there is something greater beyond.

And you do not need to be religious to have this experience. You do not need to even have a religion. You can claim you are an atheist, and yet the Knowledge that God has placed within you is still there, waiting to be discovered. And its presence is something that you cannot completely shake off or deny. It is like a constant thread in your life.
This is excerpted from Heaven and Hell - A New Revelation on Hell and Heaven
 

Top