Natural and "Fortean Natural"

[Randall]

Whats actually happening is a series of thumb sized snapshots get arranged into a composite inside our heads that create what seems like a much wider field of vision ...

I was watching an episode of Brain Games and they had several examples of this same situation. If I remember correctly I think they had guys select cheerleader candidates from a lineup but only by looking straight ahead to the center of the lineup, a couple of dubious cross dressing candidates were placed in the lineup off center and these guys ended up picking one or more of them each time because of exactly the limitation you've described.

 

[Michael Allen]

Note: "Deconstructing Fortean Phenomena" section added to my previous post--if you didn't update before turning to page 4 you may have missed my attempt to fold this back into the topic of the thread.

 

[Randall]

... We find the conditions of the possibility of our existential nature in the cessation of the virtual machine.

OK. So what I'm getting from all this is that we have a philosophical tool chest in which the top drawer contains materialism for fine tuned analysis of everything outside the theater, phenomenology for fine tuned analysis of everything inside the theater, and rationalism which acts a general purpose multi-tester, and each specialist might argue that the other two tools are unnecessary. No wonder people sometimes find it so hard to agree on what's really going on. The mode I tend to operate in ( the Critical Thinking mode ) isn't really so much a philosophy as a methodology that makes use of whatever tools can advance us toward the truth. I imagine that most hard core philosophers would balk at this, but it's worked very well for me so far, so I doubt I'll be discarding it any time soon.

Dr. Peter Boghossian
Critical Thinking Crash Course - May 11 2012 public lecture​

 

[Michael Allen]

Strange that Dr. Boghossian considers his subjective claims regarding his own tastes and preferences as infallible. I can honestly say that I am not...sometimes I have to think really hard on whether or not I like something. Sometimes I like something immediately and then later hate it...sometimes I like something and then later the same I (presumably) is indifferent of the same. What I like seems to be based on a mood, and although the immediacy of that particular mood seems to make me feel infallible about my tastes and preferences, I cannot say whether or not I "like" something outside this immediacy. Weird.

 

[Michael Allen]

You certainly capitalized on that typo LOL ...

It was a good typo

 

[Randall]

Deconstructing Fortean Phenomena

So it stands to reason, with all of this in consideration (we've been talking about this for several pages now--its time to turn this understanding into the analysis of Fortean phenomena). Regarding the insight that "Fortean phenomena" is merely a label on phenomena, we also turn inward to why we applied the label in the first place. As indicated before, one of the aspects of "Fortean phenomena" is "out of place-ness" which is our concrete understanding of something that is fundamentally "weird."

I would rewind at this point to my previous posts in which I stated that Fortean versus Non-Fortean represent two separate classes of objects or phenomena separated from each other by a set of conditions, on one side indicative of the uncommon and mysterious, and on the other the mundane and explained, and that the issue of what constitutes "natural Fortean" implies a subclass of Fortean phenomena differentiated by the concept of natural versus artificial or engineered. So something like psychic ability might be considered natural Fortean, while something like alien craft ( UFOs ) that are assumed to have been engineered, could be considered non-natural. I never received any responses to my last post there, so it seems applicable to revisit these ideas again here.

But the analysis of this apparent fundamental yields something else, that the basis of the weirdness is in the encountering of an intentional agency without its usual container. As humans in a phylum of animalia, as well as our distant cousins, chordata, and the primitive xenoturbellida, we are not used to seeing anything with intentionality that is not encased in some kind of biologically contrived meat--or some otherwise consumable object. This experience of something vaguely like a thinking being without its usual genetic matrix (there are probably other forms of replicators in the universe) probably represents the weirdest of the cataloged experiences in the canon of FP. Because the genetic virtual machine dasein makes its own absorbed being-in-the-world a fundamental basis for positing the rest of the universe of beings, it neglects to see any other form of life-form/environment interaction. In other words, the ontology derived in our organism is only in tune with an other which follows a similar schematic. The encountering of any alternatives it counts as some mysteriously re-appearing archetype (i.e. pattern for copying) but in not finding a container relegates the whole experience to something fundamentally unknowable. This phenomena of FP seems to be derived from the lacunae of our own genetically built ontology machine.

Sure. But to be clear, are you claiming this is simply a state of affairs for those uninitiated to Fortean experiences, or are you also implying that this state of affairs is hardwired to the extent that we are incapable of adapting following exposure?

It is important that our understanding should evolve if we aren't to become a laughing stock for anyone else who happens to stumble on this thread.

Thanks for the acknowledgement, but I'm tempted to think that anyone who stumbles onto this thread is more likely to ask, "WTF are those boffins talking about?" and jump directly to the Official Funny Stuff thread.

 

[Randall]

Strange that Dr. Boghossian considers his subjective claims regarding his own tastes and preferences as infallible. I can honestly say that I am not...sometimes I have to think really hard on whether or not I like something. Sometimes I like something immediately and then later hate it...sometimes I like something and then later the same I (presumably) is indifferent of the same. What I like seems to be based on a mood, and although the immediacy of that particular mood seems to make me feel infallible about my tastes and preferences, I cannot say whether or not I "like" something outside this immediacy. Weird.

He did tend to stumble over that didn't he? I took his answer to be based on the context of the question he was asked, which involved the validity of making judgments based on things that seem self evident, and that his answer basically stated that the only things we can safely assume to be self-evident are our own experiences. I would submit that your indecision about whether or not you like or dislike something at a particular time is a self-evident situation for you, but beyond that, for example assuming that because you like something, the person next to you likes the same thing, would require some evidence before we can assume it's true.

 

[Michael Allen]

I would rewind at this point to my previous posts in which I stated that Fortean versus Non-Fortean represent two separate classes of objects or phenomena separated from each other by a set of conditions, on one side indicative of the uncommon and mysterious, and on the other the mundane and explained, and that the issue of what constitutes "natural Fortean" implies a subclass of Fortean phenomena differentiated by the concept of natural versus artificial or engineered. So something like psychic ability might be considered natural Fortean, while something like alien craft ( UFOs ) that are assumed to have been engineered, could be considered non-natural. I never received any responses to my last post there, so it seems applicable to revisit these ideas again here.

I think I understood the classes incorrectly as being ontic. And I think the differentiation of natural and artificial may also fall apart if the foundation of any given FP on these bases is indeterminate. Your examples are interesting, because I think a "psychic ability" might itself be shown to be a veneer over something engineered -- i.e. a communicative act from a non-standard form of intentionality directed to a human being--or it could be construed as a passive receptivity to "signals" in the environment whereby the "psychic" can draw more information than the average individual. Alien craft on the other hand might be construed as something engineered but may instead represent and event where the human brain injects a totality of intentionality from itself into the world of things. I personally do not subscribe the former view regarding UFOs, but the concept has been explored by writers like Vallee.

Sure. But to be clear, are you claiming this is simply a state of affairs those uninitiated to Fortean experiences, or are you also implying that this state of affairs is hardwired to the extent that we are incapable of adapting following exposure?

I think even the initiated may formulate a false model on the relations if a given phenomenon is taken in a certain assumed mode--either but the question of artificiality or natural may itself be obscured to the initiate who feels themselves in touch with the natural components of the engineering, or may otherwise project a component of artificiality into something that has no intentionality at its basis. This is a very interesting question, because at first I would think the two scenarios you juxtapose are not mutually exclusive. Also, while I certainly think much of our metaphysics is hardwired into our reality machines, I don't consider this as a claim against possibly adaptation because the evolutionary perspective allows at least from a genetic point of view the very adaptations that helped us reach where we are today--even if some of this adaptability has pushed itself into the realm of our "software" or "culture." Since discrete combinatorial replicators can be more or less found in our units of culture and even in our language structures, I hardly think we are at a complete loss in dealing with the hardware limitations. I think the proper way to address the exposure is to ask questions while trying at the same time to reveal the unnoticed foundations in our questioning. The former activity will "open up a space of possibilities" for the later and help us enhance our understanding of the question prior to providing for the answer. It must be noted however that when terms are deconstructed and put back together, often we find our notions developed into something rather--pardon the pun--alien to us. While its impossible to remove the lensing effect distortions of our reality machine, it may be helpful to at least account for them and their distortions without falling to far into overly zealous and punitive positivism stances (this is another subject altogether).

Thanks for the acknowledgement, but I'm tempted to think that anyone who stumbles onto this thread are more likely to ask, "WTF are those boffins talking about?" and jump directly to the

Official Funny Stuff thread.

I think you're right.

 

[Michael Allen]

He did tend to stumble over that didn't he? I took his answer to be based on the context of the question he was asked, which involved the validity of making judgments based on things that seem self evident, and that his answer basically stated that the only things we can safely assume to be self-evident are our own experiences. I would submit that your indecision about whether or not you like or dislike something at a particular time is a self-evident situation for you, but beyond that, for example assuming that because you like something, the person next to you likes the same thing, would require some evidence before we can assume it's true.

Well its very similar to Mises (From the austrian school of economics; author of "Human Action") proposition that "the ego is the unity of the acting being" which seems self-evident to the ego only because the rest of the body and the somatic processes as the condition for the possibility of the ego are left outside (or thought to be auxilliary) with respect to the felt determinations of the ego. This is a problem for the epistemology of this school (and of libertarian thinking in general) and is yet another example where bad phenomenology formed the basis of a disastrous point of view regarding economics and monetary theory (in the sake of fairness, the people they contend with aren't in a better position to pontificate their claims).

But I didn't really take his assertion as a serious claim regarding the infallibility of one's own subjective interpretation of their own aesthetic tastes--rather as just an example to help the audience understand a tool for critical thinking.

 

[Randall]

... But I didn't really take his assertion as a serious claim regarding the infallibility of one's own subjective interpretation of their own aesthetic tastes--rather as just an example to help the audience understand a tool for critical thinking.

So if your dislike of his assertion isn't self evident to you, how is it that you know you don't like it?

 

[Randall]

I think I understood the classes incorrectly as being ontic.

The classes are contextual

And I think the differentiation of natural and artificial may also fall apart if the foundation of any given FP on these bases is indeterminate. Your examples are interesting, because I think a "psychic ability" might itself be shown to be a veneer over something engineered -- i.e. a communicative act from a non-standard form of intentionality directed to a human being--or it could be construed as a passive receptivity to "signals" in the environment whereby the "psychic" can draw more information than the average individual. Alien craft on the other hand might be construed as something engineered but may instead represent and event where the human brain injects a totality of intentionality from itself into the world of things. I personally do not subscribe the former view regarding UFOs, but the concept has been explored by writers like Vallee.

Good points, however I think those concerns are alleviated at present by the fact that we're simply defining conditions as opposed to analyzing any particular case. In other words, engineered alien craft would be by definition unnatural FP, in contrast to innate psychic ability in humans, which would be considered natural. However during the process of exploring specific cases, an investigator may find reason to suspect something more like you suggest. So if a UFO report turns out to be explained as some sort of hallucination, then the object in the report wasn't a UFO, but a hallucination, and the conceptual framework remains coherent.

I think even the initiated may formulate a false model on the relations if a given phenomenon is taken in a certain assumed mode--either but the question of artificiality or natural may itself be obscured to the initiate who feels themselves in touch with the natural components of the engineering, or may otherwise project a component of artificiality into something that has no intentionality at its basis. This is a very interesting question, because at first I would think the two scenarios you juxtapose are not mutually exclusive. Also, while I certainly think much of our metaphysics is hardwired into our reality machines, I don't consider this as a claim against possibly adaptation because the evolutionary perspective allows at least from a genetic point of view the very adaptations that helped us reach where we are today--even if some of this adaptability has pushed itself into the realm of our "software" or "culture." Since discrete combinatorial replicators can be more or less found in our units of culture and even in our language structures, I hardly think we are at a complete loss in dealing with the hardware limitations. I think the proper way to address the exposure is to ask questions while trying at the same time to reveal the unnoticed foundations in our questioning. The former activity will "open up a space of possibilities" for the later and help us enhance our understanding of the question prior to providing for the answer. It must be noted however that when terms are deconstructed and put back together, often we find our notions developed into something rather--pardon the pun--alien to us. While its impossible to remove the lensing effect distortions of our reality machine, it may be helpful to at least account for them and their distortions without falling to far into overly zealous and punitive positivism stances (this is another subject altogether).

Those are excellent points to consider when actually looking at a specific case study or when experiencing the FP directly. I've often maintained that simply because the phenomena appears to conform to a certain recognizable pattern, doesn't mean it is actually what we think it is.

In response to \what you were saying about our capacity to deal with FP based on our evolutionary hardware, because FP seems to have been around for as long as our recorded history, perhaps there's more ability hardwired into us by evolution than we recognize, and it's precisely because of this that we can recognize FP at all.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I think I might have your picture in focus now. Allow me to relay it back to you and tell me if I've got it or not. When you said, "The access and process of information post the consciousness generated experience is where our brains and cognition come into play.", the "access and process of information" is what you are calling Cognitive Mechanics ( the workings of the brain ), and what you mean by "the consciousness generated experience" is an intermediary layer between the workings of the brain and the so-called real world, and when you say "post the consciousness generated experience", you are again referring to the place in our brain below ( post ) this "layer or screen" where Cognitive Mechanics is taking place. Have I got that right?

Pretty much, except that the processing of consciousness related information and the actual resulting experiences that are retrieved from our memories occur post there actual formation and subsequent induced time delay, prior to the cognitive interpretations of those experiences. In this sense, it's something like a broadcast wherein you are hearing a professed "live"transmission , when in all reality there is a short delay in the transmission that allows for quick editing of the source if deemed necessary. In this sense, time is not an illusion created for the mind, but rather consciousness establishes a base of experience prior to us actually spontaneously regenerating processed and stored information that produce our native experiences.

Ufology: I will share with you right now why this discussion could not be more on point with respect to this thread's central theme. If what I am proposing here is actually the case in the least, our native consciousness entrainment may represent an actual environment that those in the UFOs utilize to navigate our limited sentience. Possibly via a form of singularity like technology, they have the ability to interlink and further translate their cognitive abilities within our native consciousness induced experience. They may be here within our environment continually, possibly even natively, but simply do not share humanities native consciousness entrainment.

This would of course mean that UFOs represent non human technology rendering them a typified phenomenon in and of themselves. It doesn't make them non-physical anymore than we are, but it also does not exclude the possibility that a discarnate intelligent nature may in fact be what gives them their sentience apart from consciousness induced experience.

This is dramatically further bolstered by what are thousands of well documented phenomenal humanoid encounter experiences. If one examines the possibility that just one highly intelligent and immeasurably evolved species is the responsible external non-human (or possibly extremely evolved proto humans) agency, it may be that the non-human/proto human agencies involved in these "encounters" are actually doing so by interceding between consciousness experience and it's native responsible determiner, cognition. In this sense, each human representing a paired system of Consciousness/Cognitive entrainment may represent a new leaf or piece of bark for the sentient chameleon to blend in and participate with.

There literally may be, by means of their own limitations, no other way for them to express contact with us.

So truthfully, while being completely hypothetical, researching the consciousness nature of native human experience via scientific method, may reveal just how such a strange and unique type of phenomenon differentiates itself from others, by introducing humanity to a realm wherein such Fortean Phenomenal perceptual preponderances engage our cognition. This is not a unified theory proposing an explanation for the paranormal. With great respect for the paranormal however, it assuredly would be a step in the right direction in terms of how and why such interactions might take place.

 

[Randall]

Forgive me, but before I can move on to why your theory applies to the reports of various phenomena, I still need to grasp the model of consciousness you're proposing, and I still seem to be missing some crucial point. I suspect I might know sort of what you're getting at, and it seems to be a bit clearer each time, so hopefully this won't take too much more of your time.

Pretty much, except that the processing of consciousness related information and the actual resulting experiences that are retrieved from our memories occur post ...

This is where I lost you this time. "occur post there actual formation and subsequent time delay," Did you mean, "occur post their actual" ( possessive their rather than there )? For now I'll assume so.

... there actual formation and subsequent induced time delay, prior to the cognitive interpretations of those experiences. In this sense, it's something like a broadcast wherein you are hearing a professed "live"transmission , when in all reality there is a short delay in the transmission that allows for quick editing of the source if deemed necessary. In this sense, time is not an illusion created for the mind, but rather consciousness establishes a base of experience prior to us actually spontaneously regenerating processed and stored information that produce our native experiences.

Now assuming that the minor error I pointed out above is what I think it was meant to relay, I think I get the basic idea of the process your talking about with respect to memory and consciousness and the time delay that takes place between frames of conscious awareness, but I want to be sure I have this other part right. Are you saying that the layer of reality we're calling conscious awareness is not dependent on our brain for its existence, and that we are only aware of it because it's something our brain is able to tap into, like your radio broadcast analogy?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Forgive me, but before I can move on to why your theory applies to the reports of various phenomena, I still need to grasp the model of consciousness you're proposing, and I still seem to be missing some crucial point. I suspect I might know sort of what you're getting at, and it seems to be a bit clearer each time, so hopefully this won't take too much more of your time.

This is where I lost you this time. "occur post there actual formation and subsequent time delay," Did you mean, "occur post their actual" ( possessive their rather than there )? For now I'll assume so.

Now assuming that the minor error I pointed out above is what I think it was meant to relay, I think I get the basic idea of the process your talking about with respect to memory and consciousness and the time delay that takes place between frames of conscious awareness, but I want to be sure I have this other part right. Are you saying that the layer of reality we're calling conscious awareness is not dependent on our brain for its existence, and that we are only aware of it because it's something our brain is able to tap into, like your radio broadcast analogy?

Yes, a "their" as in the possessive form. That was a grammatical error.

To the latter emboldened question: Consciousness in this case produces the sentience we experience first as a reflection, prior to cognition processing this reflection as self awareness. The act of awareness is assuredly a result of the combined entrainment of our cognitive abilities. This is to state that both consciousness and cognition are integral to the human experience, however, the body does not contain consciousness, but rather in this model, consciousness is a field of reference that cognition (the brain) processes into a stream of life experiences.

Don't let the fancy frequency babble fool you. The brain is not tuning into anything, however, the transmission of consciousness experiential information is frequency specific. The brain (cognition) is just reacting continuously because it's born much like a super conductor into a field of electrified reference that it immediately starts to process based on it's physically inherent systematics. It's like a babies first actual breath, it's essentially self working. Rather, consciousness provides the brain with frequency specific informational points of reference from which it determines it's reality as it develops sentience. Where frequency comes into play, and why consciousness is transmitting frequency specific experiential information, is because the brains cyclic dependency on as much determine it's normal visual spectrum (light frequency) and audio range (audio frequency).

It's exactly like what Mike stated and supplied us with yesterday. Those were brilliant examples. Because of consciousness we are entrained to witness or observe a very small portion of a much larger reality, or if we want to do away with the mystical nature of the word "reality", we can substitute another term, which in my opinion is a far more accurate descriptor via the word "environment".

I apologize for being not so good at being clear. I often times think in ideas translated to pictures, so the more so linear or methodical a process is, the worse I sometimes am at describing it.

 

[Randall]

Consciousness in this case produces the sentience we experience first as a reflection, prior to cognition processing this reflection as self awareness ... I apologize for being not so good at being clear. I often times think in ideas translated to pictures, so the more so linear or methodical a process is, the worse I sometimes am at describing it.

No need to apologize here. It's a tricky subject, and if I don't have a proper grasp of your paradigm, then I can't make an accurate analysis, in which case any evaluation I make would be disingenuous. I know it seems like I've been dismissive in the past, but that's only because I've run across those same issues before and knew what I was dealing with. Not so in this case. So if you can bear with my seemingly clumsy questions here, we both might get something new out of the exercise. Returning now to the question:

Your explanation didn't answer the key question: "Are you saying that the layer of reality we're calling conscious awareness is not dependent on our brain for its existence?" This is a basic Yes/No question. Or if you prefer. When you say:

"Consciousness in this case produces the sentience we experience ..."

But what produces consciousness? Is it the brain or is it something else? If it's something else, what exactly is that "something else"?

 

[Randall]

@Michael Allen: Still contemplating this one? https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/natural-and-fortean-natural.14039/page-4#post-170720
@Jeff Davis: Just wondering if we're still talking ( above )?

 

[dyingsun]

@ufology Do you Twitter?

 

[Randall]

@ufology Do you Twitter?

I think it was @Decker who called me a "luddite". I don't own a cell phone, and I plan on keeping it that way as long as possible. Besides, do you really think I could contain myself to 140 characters without thinking the thing was almost totally useless ?

 

[Michael Allen]

@Michael Allen: Still contemplating this one? https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/natural-and-fortean-natural.14039/page-4#post-170720
@Jeff Davis: Just wondering if we're still talking ( above )?

Just taking a break from thinking for the day


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Randall]

Just taking a break from thinking for the day

Well we wouldn't want to wear you out ... Enjoy!