October 28, 2007 Show

[RedClover]

Wow what a great episode! Everything from neurochemistry to Yerba Mate and even a slight mention of DMT. Mmmm...have any of you had the Guayaki brand of Yerba Mate? The Orange Blossom flavor is fantastic! Although, I do believe that it has slight MAOI properties. Nothing too extreme, but I do feel a little different than I do with coffee. Great stuff though. At any rate, this episode had a wonderful guest, fantastic topics and interesting conclusions. Thanks for the amazing show guys.

So in an effort to further discussion...what does the forum think about understanding the paranormal? Can we ever understand what is going on? Personally, I tend to feel that there is a definite progression of sorts. I don’t know if in my lifetime I can ever fully understand what’s going on. But I do feel that I understand now more than I did a few years ago.

How do the rest of you feel?

Cheers-
RedClover

 

[Crow]

Great episode guys! You ought to make Joseph Citro a regular contributer on the show (like Ritzman). I love the paranormal but, honestly, I don't think we're ever going to understand what it's all about.

 

[valiens]

Dave, this oughtta make you happy: your hypothesis that these beings are trying to enter our reality via perception to take over is the plot of Strieber's 2012: The War For Souls.

 

[CapnG]

Dave, this oughtta make you happy: your hypothesis that these beings are trying to enter our reality via perception to take over is the plot of Strieber's 2012: The War For Souls.

I've got an armload of problems with the notion of beings whose existence is dependant upon our belief in them, since that's basically religion as far as I can tell (eg. why DOES god need us to worship him?) I just don't think it works on a fundamental level. Ignoring the issue of origins for a second, all we would have to do to defeat such interlopers would be to believe they were weak and powerless, thus making them so. That's not exactly a top-notch survival mechanism.

Also I don't understand this recent rush to lump all paranormal phenomena under one umbrella. I mean, I suppose it depends on how big that umbrella is (and indeed the term "paranormal" is one such umbrella already) but I just don't see it. Like say, ultra-violet and infra-red. Sure they're both part of the light spectrum and imperceptable to us but they're not the same thing, not even close.

I suppose the root problem is something this week's guest brought up repeatedly, namely that we can't even seem to find the right means to study these phenomena, let alone catalogue or classify them and even if you could, how the hell would you explain it to lay people?

At one point, David said something that perked up my ears "We're all asleep and dammit I wanna wake up!". This reminded me of an interview I heard on Tasty Toast with John Lear (ignore Lear as Lear, he's just the messenger in this anecdote) in which he presented a "briefing" to Bell explaining the "truth" about UFOs and aliens which basically said "we're all a giant genetic experiment designed to grow, develop and farm souls for reasons we don't understand. All our beliefs and religions are mere fantasy and there is no god" Lear then asked Bell "Would you disclose that?" Bell said he wouldn't, on the grounds that most people would find it too disturbing and that the social and economic chaos that would ensue would destroy humanity.

So when David says he wants to wake up, I have to ask: Really? Are you sure? Because you might not like what you see. I hate to bring up a movie example but think of the Matrix awakening scene. Imagine that something that horrifying is real. Still want to wake up? I'm not so sure. The nihilist in me says "Fuck it, humanity needs to grow up and we can't do it in ignorance" but the realist says "Waking up is of no value if humanity chooses to destroy itself as a coping mechanism".

Lots more besides but I can't recall it now. Definately one of the most thought provoking shows in a while!

 

[David Biedny]

Dave, this oughtta make you happy: your hypothesis that these beings are trying to enter our reality via perception to take over is the plot of Strieber's 2012: The War For Souls.

So does Streiber owe me a royalty, or is it the other way around?

dB

 

[BrandonD]

Hi I'm in the midst of listening to the new paracast show and I wanted to comment on a specfic item before I forget it.

Several times on this particular show you guys have mentioned the idea of magnetic fields and chemicals interacting with our brain chemistry, and this interference being the cause or catalyst of ufos and other paranormal experiences. David speaks of these subjects with suspicion, as though they cannot be trusted, because they are just hallucinations and not "real". Bigfoot is brought up and you guys ask about hair samples and such things, to distinguish the real from the imagined.

I feel compelled to mention that the situation is possibly not so black and white as "real" and "unreal", and one big reason for this is that there's a hidden assumption in these types of statements.

I completely agree that our brains are electrochemical computers, designed to receive and process sensory input. And thus they can be interfered with via foreign electrical and chemical signals.

But the assumption being made by most people is that our electrochemical computer is not being interfered with in its ordinary state. It is assumed that the world we ordinarily see is the result of our perceptive mechanisms perceiving the outside world properly and clearly.

I don't think this assumption stands up to internal and external scrutiny. The *only* reason that we consider the world we know to be an accurate representation of the objective one is that many of us agree upon it, and we are compelled to find concensus agreements because it is less frightening and appeals to our collective ego.

When one clearly sees how malleable the individual minds are within this concensus reality, how willing we are to believe what we are told, and how willing people are to collectively agree upon GLARING falsehoods, then this opens the door to the possibility that our ordinary perception of the "world out there" is in fact being interfered with by some external source right now.

It's my opinion from my life experiences that I am, in my ordinary state at this moment, being externally induced to perceive a world that is not an accurate portrayal of what is actually "out there". There are external fields and chemicals interrupting the ordinary flow of sensory input entering my brain at all times.

Our ordinary state is not an objective state. This is reflected in the old religious traditions that appeal to me such as sufism and gnosticism.

So in that case, if it turns out to be true that certain areas of the world engender paranormal experiences because of geomagnetic waves or something of that nature (which I suspect is true), then this does not mean at all that what the people in those areas are experiencing is a "hallucination" or any less real than the ordinary world. Because the ordinary world is itself not an accurate portrayal.

One last thing to consider: If a radio receives interference from the broadcasting channel which exists outside of the radio, then the result is nothing but incoherent static. UNLESS, however, the interference originates from another channel that legitimately exists outside of the radio, and then a concrete interference is perceived. This is one reason why these coherent communicative beings strongly suggest a source that originates somewhere outside of the perceiver's mind, even if the visions are initially induced by chemicals or magnetic waves.

Ok, enough wackiness for now. Thanks for indulging me.

 

[Poi]

I'll get wacky with you, Brandon.

Where does the mind reside? Probably not inside the body, but as a limited portion of the source you mention. I like it anyway.

 

[CapnG]

I don't think this assumption stands up to internal and external scrutiny. The *only* reason that we consider the world we know to be an accurate representation of the objective one is that many of us agree upon it, and we are compelled to find concensus agreements because it is less frightening and appeals to our collective ego.

I would agree with the notion that we don't seek to accept realities beyond the perceivable out of fear but I don't think what is accepted as concrete "reality" should be judged in terms of concensus alone, rather it should be considered the base level upon which other, more complex realities may exist, sort of like a stack of styrofoam cups. Unless of course you want to abandon all notions of science and reason, then sure. Otherwise you have to agree to a foundational reality of the tenable and provable.

I also think it's dangerous to start juggling the definitions of hallucination and reality, since any hallucination that was 100% convincing would by default be indistinguishable from reality for the person perceiving it and yet it still wouldn't actually be real.

 

[BrandonD]

I would agree with the notion that we don't seek to accept realities beyond the perceivable out of fear but I don't think what is accepted as concrete "reality" should be judged in terms of concensus alone, rather it should be considered the base level upon which other, more complex realities may exist, sort of like a stack of styrofoam cups. Unless of course you want to abandon all notions of science and reason, then sure. Otherwise you have to agree to a foundational reality of the tenable and provable.

I also think it's dangerous to start juggling the definitions of hallucination and reality, since any hallucination that was 100% convincing would by default be indistinguishable from reality for the person perceiving it and yet it still wouldn't actually be real.

I'm gonna have to quote the Matrix, but your comment calls for it: What exactly is "real"? If you and I are in a virtual reality game, then we can easily agree upon all the external components of our perceivable world. A sufficiently complex game would allow us to touch and taste things as well. Is this world then "real"?

At a base level, we interpret our world based upon signals received from outside ourselves. We do not know the outside world directly, which is why we consider it "not us". Therefore when you get down to it, what is out there is actually one huge question mark.

Some people assume that the ordinary man perceives the world clearly and based solely upon his sensory input, which is why they consider our concensual world-view to be real. This may be the case, but I hold that this stance is a matter of belief and not fact.

And because the main function of this belief is to make us feel collectively safe and intelligent, I strongly suspect that this belief is actually just a security blanket fashioned out of wishful thinking.

My girlfriend told me today about an item she saw in a catalog: it was a desk with a treadmill underneath it, so you can work and exercise at the same time. If this is not an indication of how upside-down the collective perception of the world is, then I don't know what is.

 

[CapnG]

If you and I are in a virtual reality game, then we can easily agree upon all the external components of our perceivable world. A sufficiently complex game would allow us to touch and taste things as well. Is this world then "real"?

No, it isn't. A fake rolex is not a real rolex, no matter how accurate the counterfeit may be. It may be an excellent watch of remarkable quality and utterly indistinguishable from the original but it's still not the real thing by virtue of the very fact that it is a fake. The difference? Perspective.

Let's take this back to hallucinogens for a second. Say your buddy takes some powerful hallucinogens and you don't. He starts freaking out and screaming about how the chairs are made of snakes. The chairs, in point of fact are not made of snakes but he's quite insistant and refuses to sit down. Is his interpretation of reality to be considered legitamite at this point? I don't think so.

So, as I said before, if you wish to stroll down this path feel free but I can't go there because once you start throwing around notions like "there is no reality" conversation basically ends and discussion becomes pointless. Personally, I think there's enough of reality as we judge it already that is unknown and essentially unknowable to us on a basic level (infrared, ultraviolet, infrasound, ultrasound, trace odours, etc) that we need not abandon what little we have.

 

[BrandonD]

No, it isn't. A fake rolex is not a real rolex, no matter how accurate the counterfeit may be. It may be an excellent watch of remarkable quality and utterly indistinguishable from the original but it's still not the real thing by virtue of the very fact that it is a fake. The difference? Perspective.

It was a rhetorical question, I obviously don't consider a virtual reality system to be real. What I'm trying to illustrate is that human beings really have no standard of reality outside of their own perception to measure against. Therefore the keyboard you are typing on right at this moment could very well be within a computer simulation, and there is no way that you could know otherwise via your sensory apparatus.

I'm not claiming this to be the case, I think the "computer simulation" is too crude of an explanation of what is really going on. I'm trying to illustrate the countless assumptions that people generally have, and the countless things that are taken for granted.

People might cite something like the boiling point of mercury as an example of all the amazing things that we "know" about the world. But if one is honest he sees that only the things that are abstract and generally irrelevant to our personal lives and direct human interactions are able to be measured with any degree of precision. These little things are all named and meticulously catalogued, and we sit back and marvel at our own greatness and intelligence. All the while fumbling miserably in the real world, the world that actually matters to us.

It seems the closer and more relevant to us something is, the less accurately we are able to perceive and measure it. That creeps up to the foot of a great mystery in my opinion, there is something there that is huge and unknown.

Let's take this back to hallucinogens for a second. Say your buddy takes some powerful hallucinogens and you don't. He starts freaking out and screaming about how the chairs are made of snakes. The chairs, in point of fact are not made of snakes but he's quite insistant and refuses to sit down. Is his interpretation of reality to be considered legitamite at this point? I don't think so.

This is not necessarily the experience one has when under the influence of a psychedelic. But you've accurately repeated the collectively agreed-upon assumption of the "psychedelic experience". I wonder where that assumption came from? Was it from your direct perception?

So, as I said before, if you wish to stroll down this path feel free but I can't go there because once you start throwing around notions like "there is no reality" conversation basically ends and discussion becomes pointless. Personally, I think there's enough of reality as we judge it already that is unknown and essentially unknowable to us on a basic level (infrared, ultraviolet, infrasound, ultrasound, trace odours, etc) that we need not abandon what little we have.

I don't think at any point I said "there is no reality", I think you may have read into my statements. What I said rather, is that the reality collectively agreed upon is (in my opinion) not an accurate protrayal of what is objectively "out there".

And I do think that there is something objectively out there. I think it's something scary, however. It's a frightening thing to stray from the collective world-view, but to quote Robin Hood: "Faint hearts never won fair ladies".

In my opinion, part of the struggle to awaken is the struggle to break free of the blinders of beliefs and assumptions that have been imposed upon one by his culture. And those people in one's life who don't agree will try with all their might to drag that person back into the fold, because it intensifies one's own suffering to see another person inching towards the door. Much better that we all huddle together and dream the same dream.

Collective slavery is very comfortable. Ask anyone who bought that treadmill desk.

(I actually don't think we disagree too greatly on things, I think I just happened to luck out and got inspired to ramble by your comments.)

 

[Woody Sideman]

So, as I said before, if you wish to stroll down this path feel free but I can't go there because once you start throwing around notions like "there is no reality" conversation basically ends and discussion becomes pointless. Personally, I think there's enough of reality as we judge it already that is unknown and essentially unknowable to us on a basic level (infrared, ultraviolet, infrasound, ultrasound, trace odours, etc) that we need not abandon what little we have.

Reality is based on what our senses tell us is real, until our knowledge of the phenomena tells us that our senses are wrong.

Take the following as an example:

Our vision is analogue (causing persistence of vision effects) and this allows us to avoid objects that are hurtling toward us. More importantly, this phenomena allowed our anscestors to hurtle spears at prey animals and hit them when they where at full galop.

However, if you suspend a pen between finger and thumb and wobble it gently. What you will see is a rubber pen. Now, what is real? The pen looks like rubber, bending from side to side, but your knowledge of the 'real' world insists that the pen is plastic and will not bend.

An attribute of our senses that has clearly aided our survival will also give us false information. It has been more important for our survival that we are able to target and hit running deer than it is to correctly identify rubber (bendy) pens.

A person that has never seen a pen before and who is watching the experiment will truly testify that the pen is a bendy object.

In essence, when we are confronted with an unknown, our knowledge is based on our sensory perception of that unknown. It is only when we can get hold of the unknown and take it apart that we can make a reasonable assessment about it.

We now know that 95% of our universe is missing. Presumably our evolution never depended on perceiving what this 'dark matter' is. Therefore, we never evolved a sense that would perceive it. Some animals, such as rattle snakes have senses to perceive infrared. Other animals, such a flies can see in ultraviolet. Both these animals have evolved their respective attributes because it benefits their survival. It is worth the cost of brain power to process the additional information.

Woody

 

[CapnG]

This is not necessarily the experience one has when under the influence of a psychedelic. But you've accurately repeated the collectively agreed-upon assumption of the "psychedelic experience". I wonder where that assumption came from? Was it from your direct perception?

I couldn't help but notice you didn't actually answer my question to the validity of the subjects "reality". And my example, while exaggerated, is not an assumption, but a result of direct observation of friends of mine who did drugs while I did not and insisted on seperate occaisions to such incongruous things as blue snow, walls that were breathing and music only they could hear.

I actually don't think we disagree too greatly on things

Me either. Let me see where we're at: you're saying that there are larger realities which we either ignore or are made to ignore out of fear and thus we cannot consider what we experience daily to be "reality" since it represents only a fractional percentage of the "actual" reality we live in. I'm saying that since we do live in that reality, it IS reality because it's all we have to work with. Yes? No? Beuler?

However, if you suspend a pen between finger and thumb and wobble it gently. What you will see is a rubber pen. Now, what is real? The pen looks like rubber, bending from side to side, but your knowledge of the 'real' world insists that the pen is plastic and will not bend.

Ah but the pen is not rubber, that's just an illusion. The fact that our perceptions can be decieved has no bearing on the pen itself. It doesn't matter how loudly the person insists the pen is rubber, it won't magically change into rubber because of him. The reality of the pen is unchanged.

 

[Woody Sideman]

However, if you suspend a pen between finger and thumb and wobble it gently. What you will see is a rubber pen. Now, what is real? The pen looks like rubber, bending from side to side, but your knowledge of the 'real' world insists that the pen is plastic and will not bend.

Ah but the pen is not rubber, that's just an illusion. The fact that our perceptions can be decieved has no bearing on the pen itself. It doesn't matter how loudly the person insists the pen is rubber, it won't magically change into rubber because of him. The reality of the pen is unchanged.

Quite.... I think you missed the point entirely. When we are dealing with the UNKNOWN, then all we have to rely on is our perception. It is NOT an illusion that persistence of vision exisists. The phenomenum is there because it has been useful to us in our evolution. It is part of who (and what) we are. When we don't have the pen in our possession and we can't take it apart, then it is a rubber pen. That is the best that we can make of it. It is not an illusion!!!! In those circumstances, the only yardstick that we have is observation. According to observation, it is a rubber pen (don't you understand). When we don't have empirical data, then what else should we base our perception on?????

Maybe we should ask some goof ball sensationalists to set us right. Maybe they can make money, fame or whatever out of it. Maybe they can write a book about it and charge us money to read it.

When we don't know what it is, it is our perception that sets the paradigm. We only have the tools that are at our disposal, namely our senses. We don't have tricorders built in to our metabolism.

Philosophically, you can NOT make an argument here. Besides, I'm not really into arguments anyway.

Woody

BTW, as far as your other point (unquoted) is concerned, I've taken more drugs than anyone else I have ever known. The vast majority of the people that have even came close are now dead. I don't accept your 'observation' of friends wanting to get the lawn mower out because the shag on the carpet is too long. It's old hat.

 

[CapnG]

When we don't have empirical data, then what else should we base our perception on?????

You could always ask the guy holding the pen to explain it to you...

When we don't know what it is, it is our perception that sets the paradigm. We only have the tools that are at our disposal, namely our senses.

Maybe I missed something but I'm pretty sure this is where SCIENCE comes in, to go beyond our immediate sensory input to try and see what's really going on.

BTW, as far as your other point (unquoted) is concerned, I've taken more drugs than anyone else I have ever known. The vast majority of the people that have even came close are now dead.

The more you know...

 

[Woody Sideman]

When we don't have empirical data, then what else should we base our perception on?????

You could always ask the guy holding the pen to explain it to you...

lol... In the context of this forum, I had really assumed that you would interpret the selected example as being a little grey man(LGM) wobbling the pen. Also, I assumed that you would understand that the LGM would not be telling anyone what it is.

When we don't know what it is, it is our perception that sets the paradigm. We only have the tools that are at our disposal, namely our senses.

Maybe I missed something but I'm pretty sure this is where SCIENCE comes in, to go beyond our immediate sensory input to try and see what's really going on.

Science would only become involved if you happened to have a high speed camera with you at the time and you would then be able to run the sequence back in slow motion. However, that would defeat the point of the example. Other than Einstein's thought experiments, the vast majority of science requires tools of some kind in order to prove/disprove theories. Indeed, tools were ultimately required to prove Einstein right. The person observing the bendy pen would theorise that pens are bendy. Until humanity was able to get hold of the pen and prove the theory, it would just be a theory.

UFOlogy is a similar beast. It is an area where we, the interested parties, want to know what the pen is. Not only that, but for some reason we think that certain governments of the world have already got pens in their possession. Worse still, these governments are not telling us about the pen.

BTW, as far as your other point (unquoted) is concerned, I've taken more drugs than anyone else I have ever known. The vast majority of the people that have even came close are now dead.

The more you know...

Ah... in this respect you are totally correct. The more I know, the crazier I get. I've got to the stage where it doesn't even bother me anymore. I just accept it (or embrace it).

Woody

 

[Brian Now]

I've got an armload of problems with the notion of beings whose existence is dependant upon our belief in them, since that's basically religion as far as I can tell (eg. why DOES god need us to worship him?) I just don't think it works on a fundamental level. Ignoring the issue of origins for a second, all we would have to do to defeat such interlopers would be to believe they were weak and powerless, thus making them so. That's not exactly a top-notch survival mechanism.

I didn't get the same thing from that theory David (and apparently Strieber) put out there. I thought he was saying they depended on our belief to enter our world, so to speak, not to exist. They exist somewhere indeed, just usually not here, visible and in front of us.

Also I don't understand this recent rush to lump all paranormal phenomena under one umbrella. I mean, I suppose it depends on how big that umbrella is (and indeed the term "paranormal" is one such umbrella already) but I just don't see it. Like say, ultra-violet and infra-red. Sure they're both part of the light spectrum and imperceptable to us but they're not the same thing, not even close.

I was going to bring this up so I'm glad you did. It's Human Nature 101 that we want to simplify the unknown down to a manageable level. Mainstream religion is a prime example of our need for one-stop shopping for all our existential questions. To put the cause of all or most paranormal phenomena under one umbrella would be similar. That's not to say it isn't true, hell if I know if it is or isn't, I just think we have to be careful.

 

[RedClover]

While we are on the subject of drugs and reality, here is a video link of Michael Persinger’s lecture from Laurentian University. I must confess to feeling a cringe for the “corny” jokes, but none the less the information is highly relevant regardless of what one believes about these topics. On a side note, this won the 2007 TVO's Best Lecturer Competition in Canada.

The video is titled: Psychotropic Drugs and Nature of Reality, it runs around 48 minutes

and can be found at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4292093832329014323

 

[CapnG]

I didn't get the same thing from that theory David (and apparently Strieber) put out there. I thought he was saying they depended on our belief to enter our world, so to speak, not to exist. They exist somewhere indeed, just usually not here, visible and in front of us.

That doesn't really follow through logically though. Did Strieber or Ritzman already believe in these things or did they just appear in their lives? Clearly they are already able to manifest in some fashion. All they would need to do to finish the "connection" then would be to appear to everybody at least once. Apparently they can already get here from where ever (assuming we take the various given accounts as truth) and are able to affect things here so I don't really see the need for "belief" as a factor. It just smacks of religion to me.

 

[Brian Now]

That doesn't really follow through logically though. Did Strieber or Ritzman already believe in these things or did they just appear in their lives? Clearly they are already able to manifest in some fashion.

You'd have to get David to clarify as it wasn't my idea. Maybe I was just filling in the blanks as I listened to it with my own imagination...but I gathered that they meant sometimes "they" want to come into our world and find it easier to come through to someone open or who actively believes. So maybe belief then isn't a prerequisite but it greatly helps. That's why it would be better for the masses to start believing.

David never really explained what would happen after they invaded. They might find they don't really like our world after all...I know I don't 8)