Natural and "Fortean Natural"

[Michael Allen]

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

Well I was going to pull out one of my favorite Hegel quotes, then I realized I had just re-baselined my XP x64 edition desktop machine and having done that forgot to reinstall my Kindle reader so I could access the excerpt without having to type it all out from a physical text...anyhow waiting for the....oh...its done

Meanwhile, if the fear of falling into error introduces an element of distrust into science, which without any scruples of that sort goes to work and actually does know, it is not easy to understand why, conversely, a distrust should not be placed in this very distrust, and why we should not take care lest the fear of error is not just the initial error. As a matter of fact, this fear presupposes something, indeed a great deal, as truth, and supports its scruples and consequences on what should itself be examined beforehand to see whether it is truth. It starts with ideas of knowledge as an instrument, and as a medium; and presupposes a distinction of ourselves from this knowledge. More especially it takes for granted that the Absolute stands on one side, and that knowledge on the other side, by itself and cut off from the Absolute, is still something real; in other words, that knowledge, which, by being outside the Absolute, is certainly also outside truth, is nevertheless true—a position which, while calling itself fear of error, makes itself known rather as fear of the truth.

Hegel, Georg W. F. (1770 – 1831). The Phenomenology of Spirit (The Phenomenology of Mind) (Kindle Locations 1344-1346). Neeland Media LLC. Kindle Edition.

 

[Michael Allen]

The classes are contextual

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.

The indeterminacy problem with regard to the classes of AFP or NFP (artificial FP or natural FP) is fundamentally based on the engagement of the VM in recognizing and modelling an intentionality container. Definition of conditions *may* be futile if we aren't aware that the same conditions are quietly hardwired into the VM.

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.

Right...that's the point of the discussion, however I don't think removing the existential plugin for intentionality from our discourse concerning the case studies is going to help much, when the encoding in one references the other. Removing intentionality probably causes our analysis to degenerate to looking at archetypes and patterns.

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.

You're right: its a double-edged sword.

 

[Randall]

Well I was going to pull out one of my favorite Hegel quotes ... anyhow waiting for the....oh...its done

Interesting quote. But how does it answer the question: "So if your dislike of his assertion isn't self evident to you, how is it that you know you don't like it?" ? It seems to me that from an existential or phenomenological perspective personal experiences are all that can be said to be self evident. In fact that presumption seems to make up a substantial part of the foundation of such models. In the context of dualism, these same experiences are seen as personal ( subjective ) and self evident to the experiencer, but not everyone else. Even the experience of uncertainty, mistrust, or ambivalence are states that are self evident. The only way you can be uncertain about whether or not you like something is to be uncertain about it in the first place. After you've already experienced the dislike its too late to go back and reexamine the issue of how felt at that particular moment.

 

[Jeff Davis]

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:

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

Ufology,
Sorry for the LATE reply. Just an insanely crazy weekend. My daughter home from college, elderly parents, koi & turtle maintenance, etc.

It's a very tricky question Sir. One that honestly, because of what is my hypothetical process of exploring these possibilities, I am not able to answer at this time in it's fullest and most deserving capacity. This, I swear to you, has nothing to do with my late reply. I most likely wouldn't even have really been tuned at all this weekend if it weren't for the bombshell that got dropped late Friday. That was a mind blower, to some effect, not surprising in others.

This is the best answer that I can truthfully serve up at this point:

The two are assuredly integral, however utterly distinct. It is our physical cognition that is entrained via the singular location that we initiate within this relative field of consciousness, at the time we are physically separated from the birthing host's (mom's umbilical cord) cognitive/consciousness entrainment, and thereby liberated unto, and within, the independent entrainment afforded via the field of relevant consciousness. The physical body/brain and it's relative occupancy with the field of consciousness entrainment, complete in combination, our physically based, sentient condition wherein continuous entrainment feedback is produced between the two. (self awareness through physical observation, feeling, and subsequent respective interactions)

The reference field of consciousness is not ever an individual, nor does it ever represent individual human will. Rather, it is what gives humanity's individual cognitive facility it's native, or inherent sentience, wherein cognition progressively reflects upon and within this relative field of consciousness to the point of recognizing itself as an individual among individuals. It's what give's children that early childhood "I'm here" feeling of waking up to, and within, this environment of consciousness.

 

[Randall]

Ufology,
Sorry for the LATE reply. Just an insanely crazy weekend. My daughter home from college, elderly parents, koi & turtle maintenance, etc.

That sounds great. I hope everything went well .

It's a very tricky question Sir. One that honestly, because of what is my hypothetical process of exploring these possibilities, I am not able to answer at this time in it's fullest and most deserving capacity. This, I swear to you, has nothing to do with my late reply. I most likely wouldn't even have really been tuned at all this weekend if it weren't for the bombshell that got dropped late Friday. That was a mind blower, to some effect, not surprising in others.

I hope it all worked out for you and that it won't be a negative impact on your future.

This is the best answer that I can truthfully serve up at this point:

The two are assuredly integral, however utterly distinct.

OK. Assuming you mean the same as "integrated", then there seems to be overwhelming evidence in favor of that idea.

It is our physical cognition that is entrained via the singular location that we initiate within this relative field of consciousness, at the time we are physically separated from the birthing host's (mom's umbilical cord) cognitive/consciousness entrainment, and thereby liberated unto, and within, the independent entrainment afforded via the field of relevant consciousness. The physical body/brain and it's relative occupancy with the field of consciousness entrainment, complete in combination, our physically based, sentient condition wherein continuous entrainment feedback is produced between the two. (self awareness through physical observation, feeling, and subsequent respective interactions)

What produces this "field of consciousness"? Is it the product of a functioning brain? Or something else?

The reference field of consciousness is not ever an individual, nor does it ever represent individual human will. Rather, it is what gives humanity's individual cognitive facility it's native, or inherent sentience, wherein cognition progressively reflects upon and within this relative field of consciousness to the point of recognizing itself as an individual among individuals. It's what give's children that early childhood "I'm here" feeling of waking up to, and within, this environment of consciousness.

We're moving a little ahead of ourselves now. I'm still don't know what you believe to be the source of the "field of consciousness"? BTW, I find this idea of a "field" quite interesting, but before we move on to the other issues I'd still like to nail down its source. Is it the product of a functioning brain? Or something else?

 

[Jeff Davis]

That sounds great. I hope everything went well

.

All good.

I hope it all worked out for you and that it won't be a negative impact on your future.

I am referring to the "bombshell" that Christopher O'Brien dropped about Kevin R. and Roswell. No problems in my future, but I don't know about a few others though. I'm sure it'll all go away like usual.

OK. Assuming you mean the same as "integrated", then there seems to be overwhelming evidence in favor of that idea.

Integral = essential to completeness. Not standalone or indipendent.

What produces this "field of consciousness"? Is it the product of a functioning brain? Or something else?

What produces this "field of consciousness"? This, I do not know. This is where my research is at presently. The greatest amount of information considered by myself so far, primarily contends that the field of consciousness is universally all encompassing, (exists everywhere within the known universe) occurs naturally as a form of non depreciable quantum particulate based energy, yet unknown to science. So hypothetically, consciousness in this model is an interactive Quantum Field. In this hypothetical sense, consciousness is not the result of the functioning brain, although it is assuredly responsible for the human brain's ability to interactively comprehend and successfully adapt to it's native physical environment.

We're moving a little ahead of ourselves now. I'm still don't know what you believe to be the source of the "field of consciousness"? BTW, I find this idea of a "field" quite interesting, but before we move on to the other issues I'd still like to nail down its source. Is it the product of a functioning brain? Or something else?

Source: No real or ready clue. Energy is very mysterious business, at the Quantum level, especially so.

 

[Randall]

.
All good.

Great

I am referring to the "bombshell" that Christopher O'Brien dropped about Kevin R. and Roswell. No problems in my future, but I don't know about a few others though. I'm sure it'll all go away like usual.

Oh right, the Roswell slide show ... or should I say sideshow.

Integral = essential to completeness. Not standalone or indipendent.

OK. This seems reasonable. Perhaps we can expand on it later.

What produces this "field of consciousness"? This, I do not know. This is where my research is at presently. The greatest amount of information considered by myself so far, primarily contends that the field of consciousness is universally all encompassing, (exists everywhere within the known universe) occurs naturally as a form of non depreciable quantum particulate based energy, yet unknown to science. So hypothetically, consciousness in this model is an interactive Quantum Field. In this hypothetical sense, consciousness is not the result of the functioning brain, although it is assuredly responsible for the human brain's ability to interactively comprehend and successfully adapt to it's native physical environment.

Source: No real or ready clue. Energy is very mysterious business, at the Quantum level, especially so.

OK. This is good. Saying you don't know is far better than being invested in some unsubstantiated belief. It also marks the boundaries of the known versus unknown in this discussion. If we don't know what produces this "field of consciousness" then further guessing is only having us tread water of increasingly disturbing depths. I propose that at this point we refrain from getting ourselves in any deeper and do some analysis on this "consciousness field" idea.

I'm also uncertain, but my working hypothesis at this time is that consciousness is an emergent property of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state. The evidence consists of numerous studies and experiments in neurology that clearly demonstrate that the brain does indeed emanate waves of energy that can be measured, and that manipulating the physical brain in various ways results in a direct effect on specific aspects of consciousness across the full range of human experience including sensory, motor, emotional and cognitive functions. Furthermore when the brain dies there is no evidence of these energy waves or any signs of consciousness.

Does this seem reasonable? So far, I haven't got anything else substantial to go on.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Great

Oh right, the Roswell slide show ... or should I say sideshow.

OK. This seems reasonable. Perhaps we can expand on it later.

OK. This is good. Saying you don't know is far better than being invested in some unsubstantiated belief. It also marks the boundaries of the known versus unknown in this discussion. If we don't know what produces this "field of consciousness" then further guessing is only having us tread water of increasingly disturbing depths. I propose that at this point we refrain from getting ourselves in any deeper and do some analysis on this "consciousness field" idea.

I'm also uncertain, but my working hypothesis at this time is that consciousness is an emergent property of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state. The evidence consists of numerous studies and experiments in neurology that clearly demonstrate that the brain does indeed emanate waves of energy that can be measured, and that manipulating the physical brain in various ways results in a direct effect on specific aspects of consciousness across the full range of human experience including sensory, motor, emotional and cognitive functions. Furthermore when the brain dies there is no evidence of these energy waves or any signs of consciousness.

Does this seem reasonable? So far, I haven't got anything else substantial to go on.

Lets see, our original consideration was whether or not there are any phenomena whatsoever, that we could technically refer to as existing in a category of phenomena known as Fortean Phenomena, correct?

 

[Randall]

Lets see, our original consideration was whether or not there are any phenomena whatsoever, that we could technically refer to as existing in a category of phenomena known as Fortean Phenomena, correct?

Sure. How does that apply to the issue of consciousness as we're discussing it now?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Sure. How does that apply to the issue of consciousness as we're discussing it now?

Honestly, I have never veered from that path. I just knew that laying out a basic framework of the consciousness model that I am proposing here might help to demonstrate, via an illumination of the hypothetical model's basic order of process, the path we're on to this particular determination.

Honestly, I'm just as curious as to whether these "phenomena", are in all actuality, "events" at all. Remember: There is no hard evidence. No repeatably verifiable test. That's the nature of that which is Fortean. No one knows, and yet everyone is talking.

I am quite intrigued by what you bring up concerning these brainwave emanations, Ufology. Could you elaborate on that just a bit? How might they equate to consciousness, and what function in nature might they serve? Or are you mentioning them with reference to their ability to be interfered with? I am aware of many tests along the lines of those you are referring to concerning predictable altered sensory perception and hallucination, scenarios. These tests serve to reinforce the notion that the physical brain is just an interpreter of signals, which if scrambled specifically, responds specifically. I don't see how that demonstrates a functional sentient entity as a whole. Could you define and describe for me what is this "emergent property" that you referred to? That went by kind of fast.

Furthermore when the brain dies there is no evidence of these energy waves or any signs of consciousness.

To answer your quote, with a quote, from me, from a few posts back.

The greatest amount of information considered by myself so far, primarily contends that the field of consciousness is universally all encompassing, (exists everywhere within the known universe) occurs naturally as a form of non depreciable quantum particulate based energy, yet unknown to science.

Looking for the signature of consciousness, specific to a dead or alive human being, at this point, is much like looking for an ocean contained in, or directly around, a single fish on your diner table.

 

[Randall]

Honestly, I have never veered from that path. I just knew that laying out a basic framework of the consciousness model that I am proposing here might help to demonstrate, via an illumination of the hypothetical model's basic order of process, the path we're on to this particular determination.

Sure. I'm just being methodical. Unless our framework of consciousness is clear, incoherency will creep into anything that is based on it as a premise for further analysis.

Honestly, I'm just as curious as to whether these "phenomena", are in all actuality, "events" at all. Remember: There is no hard evidence. No repeatably verifiable test. That's the nature of that which is Fortean. No one knows, and yet everyone is talking.

Let's put that in our queue to deal with once we get a handle on the consciousness issue.

I am quite intrigued by what you bring up concerning these brainwave emanations, Ufology. Could you elaborate on that just a bit? How might they equate to consciousness, and what function in nature might they serve?

I'm talking about measurable fields resulting from neuro-electrical activity in the brain, generically called "brain waves" and labeled as Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, Theta, Mu, and measurable using an EEG device.

Or are you mentioning them with reference to their ability to be interfered with? I am aware of many tests along the lines of those you are referring to concerning predictable altered sensory perception and hallucination, scenarios. These tests serve to reinforce the notion that the physical brain is just an interpreter of signals, which if scrambled specifically, responds specifically. I don't see how that demonstrates a functional sentient entity as a whole. Could you define and describe for me what is this "emergent property" that you referred to? That went by kind of fast.

When I use the phrase "emergent property" I mean that the "consciousness field" you allude to appears to be the result of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state. To use an analogy it's like how the image produced by a video camera emerges as a result of a normally functioning camera/monitor system that is active. However in the case of consciousness, we don't know what the "field" is made of. When we start talking about fields we're getting into the idea of Substance Dualism, which hypothesizes that consciousness is made of some sort of substance analogous to the light particles/waves in our monitor analogy. That's why I'm intrigued with this idea of a "field". Science doesn't really know what common fields are made of. They only know that they can be detected and measured and predicted to behave in certain ways. When pressed, a scientist will become evasive, resorting to words like "potential" and "influence". Quantum theory suggests that some fields are the result of an exchange of photons, but it's still not clear what's really going on. Similarly, perhaps your idea of a "consciousness field" takes us a few millimeters closer to understanding what we're dealing with.

To answer your quote, with a quote, from me, from a few posts back.
Looking for the signature of consciousness, specific to a dead or alive human being, at this point, is much like looking for an ocean contained in, or directly around, a single fish on your diner table.

Your analogy suggests that consciousness is not the product of the brain, but that the brain ( the fish ) is immersed in a field ( ocean ) of consciousness that it taps into for its own consciousness. If anything, the evidence suggests that this field might be a secondary effect rather than the primary source of consciousness. The evidence goes more like this: The fish on your dinner table has no signature of consciousness because it's dead, unless of course it's your pet goldfish swimming around in its bowl, in which case it still has all the "signatures" of life. So what might this secondary field effect be? I see no logical reason to think that multiple sources of consciousness can create overlapping fields, analogous to an ad hoc wireless network ( groups of wireless routers scattered about a community that create a wireless access zone ). The combined signals in this zone might be considered to be a "field" of sorts. If an individual transmitter dies, the field remains intact provided there are other sufficient transmitters to fill the gap. So in this model we have a rather clever combination of two seemingly contradictory ideas working in harmony. Your thoughts?

 

[Michael Allen]

Interesting quote. But how does it answer the question: "So if your dislike of his assertion isn't self evident to you, how is it that you know you don't like it?" ? It seems to me that from an existential or phenomenological perspective personal experiences are all that can be said to be self evident. In fact that presumption seems to make up a substantial part of the foundation of such models. In the context of dualism, these same experiences are seen as personal ( subjective ) and self evident to the experiencer, but not everyone else. Even the experience of uncertainty, mistrust, or ambivalence are states that are self evident. The only way you can be uncertain about whether or not you like something is to be uncertain about it in the first place. After you've already experienced the dislike its too late to go back and reexamine the issue of how felt at that particular moment.

Personal experiences are not only personal--these experiences reference shared objects, tools, equipment and methods that lie "in the world" along with other "persons" The question of the shared objects evidentiality assumes referenced shared objects prior to the question. Adding or subtracting the "self-" prefix does nothing to change this evidentiality. Mood experiences are based on the same framework--you can't say that the mood, uncertainty, mistrust came prior to the grounds of assumed shared objects, tools, equipment, methods (all of which you don't think about because they are too obvious or too vacuous), but what you can do is derive these moods from a breakdown in the same. Mainly when things go awry in the carpenter's woodshop, e.g. like noticing something "missing" (which wouldn't have been noticed had it not had a relevance structure to the rest of the tools and your project). Like the hammer you keep using to nail a plank of wood till it falls apart, in the same way you notice your own moods, uncertainty and mistrust, not in the average everyday working out in the world, but in a distinct breakdown that makes you cognizant of something that didn't work, didn't appear in the right place, or fell to pieces while you were using it. Of course the experienced moods regarding breakdowns are something that might be considered to be private--they are only so because they are privative--not primary--modes of being-in-the-world (pun intended, but is useless).

The simple answer to your question is actually elementary and I almost feel as though I am about to cheat you: I never said I didn't like the assertion--I just said I wasn't sure if I'd like a given assertion. I may actually like it and not know it...or I may dislike something and not know it. There's more to this, I know... [more to come]

 

[Randall]

Personal experiences are not only personal--these experiences reference shared objects, tools, equipment and methods that lie "in the world" along with other "persons" .... I never said I didn't like the assertion--I just said I wasn't sure if I'd like a given assertion. I may actually like it and not know it...or I may dislike something and not know it ...

Your comments are perfectly fair within their context. You also indicated way back there someplace that the self-evident aspect of likes and dislikes are something that occurs in real time. I think you referred to it as "immediacy", and I think that is actually what we were really referring to in the first place. Unless we're in a state of evaluating something in real time, what we're really saying is that, for example, "Last time I tried fried asparagus I didn't like it.", but in reality that doesn't really tell us whether or not we actually like it at that moment unless you happen to be trying some. As usual you've added an extra level of sophistication to a seemingly "self evident" situation !

 

[Jeff Davis]

I remember now, thanks to the thread's title, how this all started. It was to decide whether there was such a thing as Natural Phenomena vs. Natural Fortean Phenomena. I think there is. I believe that natural phenomena is representative of yet understood results, or a specific by-product of combinations within nature, of that which is inextricably bound to nature. The weather, climate, flora, fauna, etc. This categopry also would include all phenomena induced within lab conditions that excite, manipulate, exert force upon, or any other interaction with finite elements found within nature. For instance, when tiny, and do mean tiny (which I realize that you know) black holes are formed in large colliders, that would be an example of an induced natural phenomena because all the elements involved are derived from nature or natural laws.

With Fortean events however, we do find elements within nature than can be used either in direct connection to the phenomenon's event, or comparatively from nature from which to base our curious rationale upon, but there is one single difference that separates Fortean Phenomena from all other Natural types of Phenomena. That one thing is that they initially occur, with reference to known conclusions, within the context of unanticipated human experience. It begins with observation, true enough. Then the theme repeats itself with respect to alternate versions of similar experience, over, and over, and over, albeit only in appearance, just enough to state that multiple witnesses may see the same thing, but far more times in such a manner that the observations just fit in among the general cataloged entries that they are grouped with associatively.

When one has an experience such as the one that I had myself, and that many others have had, it is an absolute given that the mind is apart of that experience from it's onset. There is no question. It's not like taking a drug, however it assuredly begins with an observational trigger. In my case there was more than one individual present that witnessed the event, wherein they also experienced the sensory informational input that my senses did. I wish there was some way around this subjective nature of my own observations, but I don't have anything else to draw from. Just being honest.

I just wanted to let you know that I am back on the case within this thread and will be presenting more hypothetical speculations as to the source of the consciousness field very soon. The truth is, I do not know most obviously. I will begin by asking you this: What is the source for the field of space, and/or dark matter within our universe? It's assuredly true that they can be defined, but what is their source?

 

[Randall]

I just wanted to let you know that I am back on the case within this thread and will be presenting more hypothetical speculations as to the source of the consciousness field very soon. The truth is, I do not know most obviously. I will begin by asking you this: What is the source for the field of space, and/or dark matter within our universe? It's assuredly true that they can be defined, but what is their source?

Space and Dark Matter are fundamentally different. Space is a dimensional construct as opposed to a field within that construct, and Dark Matter is still purely hypothetical. It's something that theoreticians use to balance out the math that otherwise doesn't add up. Nobody has ever seen it or measured it. Consciousness on the other hand is self-evident.
As mentioned before, if we are to liken consciousness to a field, it seems to me that it's more like a magnetic field. We don't know exactly what such fields are made of, but we have a pretty good understanding of their properties, and the overwhelming evidence suggests that they are associated with a particular kind of material. For example magnetic fields are produced by certain metals that have their atoms aligned in a particular fashion. Consciousness fields appear to be produced by certain sufficiently complex living brains. I like the light bulb analogy because it's easier to visualize and we already use it in an analogous fashion. For example when we say that a person has a bright idea, we're referring to key components of consciousness, particularly, comprehension and expression. I realize it's not a perfect analogy, but it works well enough to get the idea across.

In the model I'm working from, in absence of any conscious beings, there would be no consciousness field. Similarly, in a universe with no light sources, everything would be dark. However in a universe with many conscious beings, there would be many consciousness fields, and together one might hypothesize that they create a "collective field". This might also offer some insight into the idea of a "collective unconscious" ( see diagram below ):

Many smaller fields create one larger field.

For another consciousness ( Fortean or otherwise ) to navigate this field,
they would first have to introduce themselves into it.
​

The diagram above was initially created for what's called an ad hoc wireless network. If you're into wireless computing, then it's something a lot of people are doing these days to create their own mini-internets. Whole communities can join up this way and communicate with each other without having to be on the main Internet. IMO this is a better analogy for "consciousness fields" than one where consciousness is broadcast out from one huge old-style tower someplace.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Space and Dark Matter are fundamentally different. Space is a dimensional construct as opposed to a field within that construct, and Dark Matter is still purely hypothetical. It's something that theoreticians use to balance out the math that otherwise doesn't add up. Nobody has ever seen it or measured it. Consciousness on the other hand is self-evident.
As mentioned before, if we are to liken consciousness to a field, it seems to me that it's more like a magnetic field. We don't know exactly what such fields are made of, but we have a pretty good understanding of their properties, and the overwhelming evidence suggests that they are associated with a particular kind of material. For example magnetic fields are produced by certain metals that have their atoms aligned in a particular fashion. Consciousness fields appear to be produced by certain sufficiently complex living brains. I like the light bulb analogy because it's easier to visualize and we already use it in an analogous fashion. For example when we say that a person has a bright idea, we're referring to key components of consciousness, particularly, comprehension and expression. I realize it's not a perfect analogy, but it works well enough to get the idea across.
In the model I'm working from, in absence of any conscious beings, there would be no consciousness field. Similarly, in a universe with no light sources, everything would be dark. However in a universe with many conscious beings, there would be many consciousness fields, and together one might hypothesize that they create a "collective field". This might also offer some insight into the idea of a "collective unconscious" ( see diagram below ):

Many smaller fields create one larger field.

For another consciousness ( Fortean or otherwise ) to navigate this field,
they would first have to introduce themselves into it.​

The diagram above was initially created for what's called an ad hoc wireless network. If you're into wireless computing, then it's something a lot of people are doing these days to create their own mini-internets. Whole communities can join up this way and communicate with each other without having to be on the main Internet. IMO this is a better analogy for "consciousness fields" than one where consciousness is broadcast out from one huge old-style tower someplace.

Ufology!
Excellent to be here again! I've been sincerely missing this, and as evidence, my present reading reflects as much. I have been REALLY struggling with some heavy math over the last two days, despite escapades elsewhere.

Frankly, it's not typical of me in the least to comprehensively reference hard math, so I won't pretend to be able to fully comprehend, or actually express many of the mathematical substantiations for these experiments contained in this reading, yet. I am somewhat surprised however, at some of my own visually oriented imaginings, and their geometric similarities that have been held in my mind for some time now. Used as a 3D, visually imagined, and literally described construct for my own meager speculations. Forever, up until this point, minus any real attempt whatsoever on my part at a working mathematical model with which to falsify with. At the pace that I am presently proceeding, I should achieve destination status, hopefully before I die.

Are you familiar with the book: The Iceland Papers ? Within this excellent book there are repeatably demonstrable experiments showing the mathematically observed working models of various paranormal phenomena to the expanse of Einstein's Paradox. The field consciousness concepts that we have been generally considering here, I have been reminded of several times, but nothing like the slap upside the noggin I got today when I arrived at synchronicity's doorstep . The thing is, a few hours ago today, I randomly turned to an area within this book, that I am focusing on presently, that was precisely what I last expressed to you here in this thread that I did not know! Sounds corny as whatever, but in that instant, I flashed back to being at work shortly before I left, and seeing the post alert that you had posted newly in this thread. Instantly. These multiple documentations literally and numerically represent what I have expressed here in terms of the field of consciousness and it's hypothetical, frequency based reception by a remote physical host!

Within the scope of this excellent submitted text, there are multiple physical models of a process referred to as "remote reception". The study, and models proposed, are by a women named: Elizabeth A. Rauscher PhD | Physicist

This woman sounds like one serious bad ass cool academic if you ask me.

 

[Randall]

Ufology! Excellent to be here again! I've been sincerely missing this, and as evidence, my present reading reflects as much. I have been REALLY struggling with some heavy math over the last two days, despite escapades elsewhere.

Frankly, it's not typical of me in the least to comprehensively reference hard math, so I won't pretend to be able to fully comprehend, or actually express many of the mathematical substantiations for these experiments contained in this reading, yet. I am somewhat surprised however, at some of my own visually oriented imaginings, and their geometric similarities that have been held in my mind for some time now. Used as a 3D, visually imagined, and literally described construct for my own meager speculations. Forever, up until this point, minus any real attempt whatsoever on my part at a working mathematical model with which to falsify with. At the pace that I am presently proceeding, I should achieve destination status, hopefully before I die.

Are you familiar with the book: The Iceland Papers ? Within this excellent book there are repeatably demonstrable experiments showing the mathematically observed working models of various paranormal phenomena to the expanse of Einstein's Paradox. The field consciousness concepts that we have been generally considering here, I have been reminded of several times, but nothing like the slap upside the noggin I got today when I arrived at synchronicity's doorstep . The thing is, a few hours ago today, I randomly turned to an area within this book, that I am focusing on presently, that was precisely what I last expressed to you here in this thread that I did not know! Sounds corny as whatever, but in that instant, I flashed back to being at work shortly before I left, and seeing the post alert that you had posted newly in this thread. Instantly. These multiple documentations literally and numerically represent what I have expressed here in terms of the field of consciousness and it's hypothetical, frequency based reception by a remote physical host!

Within the scope of this excellent submitted text, there are multiple physical models of a process referred to as "remote reception". The study, and models proposed, are by a women named: Elizabeth A. Rauscher PhD | Physicist This woman sounds like one serious bad ass cool academic if you ask me.

I checked out the first link ( Iceland Papers ), but there wasn't much there. I'd have to acquire a copy of the book. However the second link on Elizabeth A. Rauscher led to some interesting information, and I found a video that you might find interesting:

 

[Jeff Davis]

I checked out the first link ( Iceland Papers ), but there wasn't much there. I'd have to acquire a copy of the book. However the second link on Elizabeth A. Rauscher led to some interesting information, and I found a video that you might find interesting:

Thanks Ufology. Give me a few today to check this out, and I'll reflect this afternoon or evening. You don't know how bad I WISH that I could honestly provide you, and every other member of this forum, a pdf of this book. The respect that these subjects are addressed with in this publication is mind blowing. I have never seen the paranormal treated with such dignity.

 

[Randall]

Thanks Ufology. Give me a few today to check this out, and I'll reflect this afternoon or evening. You don't know how bad I WISH that I could honestly provide you, and every other member of this forum, a pdf of this book. The respect that these subjects are addressed with in this publication is mind blowing. I have never seen the paranormal treated with such dignity.

Yellow alert. The subject matter in general is fraught with false or unproven claims, pseudoscience, and fakery. So rather than being treated with dignity, it would be more prudent to treat it dispassionately and with fair-minded skepticism. The book reviews suggest that the content consists largely of the opinions and speculations of academics on contentious issues surrounding consciousness. The book is also dressed up as being scientific. With these things in mind, before we even open the cover, we should first be prepared to ask whether or not it fits the definition of pseudoscience. Does it meet accepted scientific standards or if it is just an attempt by the author and/or a group of academic believers to fit the supernatural into their personal paradigms? If the book falls into the definition of pseudoscience, then how much of it ( if any ) should be taken seriously? I know it sounds hard line. But we should force ourselves to ask these questions while at the same time being open minded enough to recognize valid points.

 

[Constance]

. . . Phenomenology, when properly applied as a method, actually exposes the world in a pure realism that can neither be attained through pure physicalist reduction or pure idealism. It is not about accepting the appearances of the world as such without any foundation, but recognizing the bases for which one can reveal the foundation and the terms of the formal indicators like "consciousness," "being," "world," "subject" and "object." This goes beyond the grammatical combinatorial game were we dice around with our broken words and applying logic formulae to output "truth functions" based on those rearrangements.

Overall I agree with the point in your analogy, but it's a bad situation when we've de-worded our perspectives so much that we can only find our way back to the symptoms of that de-wording by asserting the dominance of one extreme perspective over another--both extremes are true and false at the same time (because of their overlapping and contradictory truth functions), and both are wrong because they've divorced their inquiry from the foundation and bases of being itself. It is as if two mystics are arguing over whether the yin-yang symbol is a black circle with a white fish vs a white circle with a black fish.

Having a background in phenomenology, I'm in agreement with almost everything you've written in this thread and the preceding one (on reincarnation), which it was diverted from. I'm curious about whether you've read any of the recent 'object-oriented philosophy' books such as Guerilla Metaphysics: Phenomenology and the Carpentry of Things by Graham Harman? I bought that and another one before reading any in-depth reviews and soon found them to be inadequate by virtue of misunderstanding Heidegger's and Merleau-Ponty's thinking and writing. If by chance you've looked into this object-oriented niche of ideas, I'd be glad to hear your impressions.