Are There No Real Words for UFO's?

[Randall]

IMO Ufology, this is not a real good analogy. Human beings designed light bulbs with the understanding that they produce light when electrically charged/facilitated. We did not design and produce ourselves, although via the nature of the materialist's speculative consensus, we might as well have. Consciousness and waking cognitive determination are entirely two different things.

Analogies aren't supposed to be exact descriptions, rather they are for illustrating a point, and the issue of whether or not we created ourselves or light bulbs isn't relevant to the point.

In the absence of a functioning brain, I'm none too certain there is evidence of ANYTHING

That all depends on how much of a subjective idealist you are.

What you are referring to here is cognitive reason and function, not consciousness.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

And so it should considering the relevant integral and interfacial relationship that it shares to and with consciousness

Again ... invoking unnecessary and supernatural complexity.

Specific facets of cognition, not consciousness. Based on former models, science has never possessed a working understanding of consciousness. Just associative speculations. Quantum Mechanics posits a far more scientifically tenable model wherein consciousness and cognition are separate but interrelated.

Again ... "A rose by any other name" ... If there is no perceptible difference between "specific facets of cognition" ( knowledge, memories, intelligence, perception, reasoning etc. ) and "consciousness", then there probably isn't any difference, and invoking some supernatural or quasi-supernatural explanation doesn't advance our understanding of the issue.

 

[Burnt State]

Consciousness is best likened to an interfacial environment. We are apart of it, it is apart of us. Not so much an independent intelligence or any form of volition whatsoever. The brain is both the boundless intelligence, as well as the independent volition, but it's intelligence that is decisively navigation relevant to consciousness, not vice versa.
...

I cannot begin to express how good you both have made me feel today. To realize that I have inspired even the smallest modicum of interest in subjects such as these is reward beyond reward. I am thrilled to be apart of such an ongoing hypothetical consideration. I am continuously inspired to new levels of expanded interest within this forum. The vibe is GREAT!! (and real, that's so important)

I would like to introduce everyone to whom I refer to as the father of Quantum Consciousness. Truthfully, QC has knowingly been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, albeit not in what could be demonstrated as scientific quantum principle. There is no man that I am aware of that has done more to forward this line of modern human scientific reasoning than Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D.

This is the man that has authored the text book most commonly used to teach Quantum (Small Particle) Mechanics in Universities and Colleges across academia.

Quantum Activist - Documentary Film and DVD with Amit Goswami <---This will BLOW YOUR MINDS!!

I watched the Amit Goswami movie - it was excellent. I hope ufology gets a chance to watch this movie as I think it's the most thoughtful approach to discussing consciousness I've seen. I think the most salient feature of this movie is that the man with the innovative ideas around non-local consciousness is also the guy who wrote the standard text on Quantum Mechanics - ufology will appreciate that and the references to the scientific data collection from various universities around communication between two people without the use of any signal. I wish that part was explored in even more depth as it came cross as more convincing than tales of reincarnation and remote viewing as arguments for non-local consciousness.

Where it ultimately moved towards, which was this space of human compassion with strong Buddhist tendencies, took me by surprise a bit. His 'do be do be do' section was also something that rang with truth. Certainly the moments of the greatest individual connection with the cosmos always comes when we are patient, meditating and collecting more possibilities to make those creative discontinuous leaps. When we are just being, there is a great calm, instead of the mania of 'doing' (especially 'doing without thinking').

It resonated so much with me and my partner that we endorsed it as necessary viewing for my Zen Buddhist brother in law. I enjoy this world vision far more than Krishnamurti's.

So thanks so much for introducing me to this man, Jeff. I can see what I will be investing future reading time into. This guy has many good deep thoughts that are also applicable in one's life, so that makes it much more tangible than theoretical musings.

At one point in the movie I asked myself, "so, what are UFO's then, if the universe leans towards this sense of calm wonder?" Whatever they are, Goswami left me feeling like the supreme 'other' must be as indifferently calm towards me as I feel about why humans do the terrible things we do to each other. It s what it is and it could be better, nothing to get too sad about.

I can see how that sounds a litte space brotheirsh, which is not my intention, as I feel the indifference is about a lack of attachment to things. That doesn't mean you can't be kind to a species different than you, as to be part of the universe is to be part of each other. Hence, 'no harm' should be the policy that rules across galactic space.

 

[Burnt State]

Perhaps you will be able to enlighten me some more on your hypothesis, but so far, if we're to consider the concept of what is "more likely", and apply some basic principles of logic and Occam's Razor, I'm not convinced that the wireless computer system analogy as a theory for consciousness fits the criteria as well as the light bulb/light analogy.
...
Well, actually, as previously stated, there is plenty of scientific evidence to be reasonably certain that consciousness is an emergent quality of a functioning brain. The evidence is backed by countless observations that:
...

I love that expression, the "para-dots". I hope you don't mind if I absorb it into my vocabulary ... please . What I really enjoy about these discussions is that we ( all participants in general ) find value in connecting these dots. Life and existence are the truly big mysteries, and the para dots are the clues that lead us toward understanding them. They're like these little sparling gemstones along the path, and as you point out, when we start to follow them, we learn that some of them are fakes. But that doesn't mean some of them aren't also real, and when we find them, we're that much richer for it. The trick is distinguishing between the fakes and the true gems ... and that's where applying the principles of critical thinking and science come in. So by all means, let's have a closer look at these issues now. I think I've got a pretty solid viewpoint, but at the same time, that doesn't mean I don't think that there is a way to also integrate the analogy you propose ... in fact, with a little adjusting, I do ( assuming you're interested ).

ufology, I'm always up for a good discussion and greatly appreciate both your sense of determination, logic and conviction. I wish I could keep up with it all. This particular discussion requires a wealth of reading for me to complete just to keep up. I wish I had more rich proof for the hypothesis.

The lightbulb analogy does not seem comparable to me at all as the bulb is transparent, we see the filament and understand why it glows when electricity flows. How and why consciousness works is much more mysterious. How language makes thought I get, but how the mind-body piece works is not my specialty at all. From what I've researched it appears that John Chalmers is the man who has framed the discussion in a way that stimulated new thinking in this arena, and depending on your vantage point you might say that Goswami has answered the problem well, or hardly treated it at all. I have a feeling that Jeff might have a better ackground in this area. I read one refutation of Goswami's answer to Chalmers but it was not scholarly enough to post here. But here's the necessary reading on the subject.

the hard problem is dead/long live the hard problem

I don't subscribe to the notion that all thought is language. The most important moments of connection for me involve just being, without words. I do understand that whethe it's Chalmers' dualism or Goswami's claimed monism these discussions lean a little more towards helping me to connect the para-dots than straight, traditional science. Please, if you have the time, watch the Quantum Activist ad key us know what you think.

I wish I could offer up more gems to sort out the fool's gold from the real material, but so much of this conversation, for me, is not rooted in a materialist framework. Perhaps I'm still hung up on Jeff's potential unified para-dot theory as those nebulous mystery items tied to consciousness, though still unproven, provides what I feel to be a more likely scenario than one body=one mind=one consciousness. There's more going on in our narratives than just this.

On the issue of paranormal perceptions ( NDEs, ESP, Reincarnation ... etc. ), I believe that such phenomena exist, but that they can still be explained ( hypothetically ) without invoking the extra baggage that goes along with absolute dualism.

What do you feel is behind these if not this notion of non-local consciousness?

 

[Randall]

ufology, I'm always up for a good discussion and greatly appreciate both your sense of determination, logic and conviction. I wish I could keep up with it all. This particular discussion requires a wealth of reading for me to complete just to keep up. I wish I had more rich proof for the hypothesis.

Not to worry. It's not as much of a "hard problem" as it's made out to be. The article you posted the link to is an excellent overview, but it skims over a couple of issues that I think are of key relevance. It's also not really what we're debating in that I don't dispute that consciousness exists. It seems that we both agree on that point, and therefore we don't have to get into all the burden of proof tennis that the article talks about with respect to that particular issue. What we're exploring is the most reasonable explanation of and for it.

The light bulb analogy does not seem comparable to me at all as the bulb is transparent, we see the filament and understand why it glows when electricity flows. How and why consciousness works is much more mysterious.

The light bulb analogy works just fine when you consider the analogy in the context it was meant to be understood. Like any analogy it isn't intended to be identical to the thing it is meant to illustrate and certain aspects simply aren't relevant, one of them being whether or not our skull is transparent like a light bulb ( which in many cases it isn't the anyhow ). So allow me to elaborate a bit. In this analogy the lightbulb is analogous to our physical makeup and the light is analogous to our consciousness. In the psychic and new age circles it's often referred to less objectively as our "spirit", that thing which we consider to be our aware selves that exists separate from, yet connected to our bodies. Some of the common factors that make the analogy work are as follows:

1. Functioning light bulbs consist of physical elements bridging an electrical gap inside round shells which come in a variety of colors.
2. Functioning brains consists of physical elements bridging electro-chemical gaps inside a round shells which come in variety of colors.

1. Functioning light bulbs produce something called light which we don't fully understand that has mysterious properties but is nevertheless readily apparent to the experiencer.
2. Functioning brains produce something we call consciousness which we don't fully understand and has mysterious properties but is nevertheless readily apparent to the experiencer.

1. The light given off by a functioning light bulb is not the same as the physical parts which produce it. It is ethereal and separate from the light bulb material.
2. Consciousness is not the same as the physical parts of the brain which produces it. It is ethereal and separate from the brain material.

1. When parts of a light bulb are damaged, parts of a light bulb may not work e.g. in a tri-light or LED array, if one of the elements burns out, the result is diminished capacity.
2. When parts of the brain are damaged, parts of it may not work, resulting in diminished awareness ( consciousness ) of certain things.
3. In both cases, when the damage is repaired, we see an increase in capacity.

1. A light bulb is driven by the electricity gathered through the induction of energy from the environment and transmitted into it from an external electrical grid .
2. Our senses are driven by electro-chemical signals gathered through the absorption of energy and/or chemicals from the environment which are turned electro-chemical pulses that are transmitted to our brain via a grid ( our nervous system ).

1. The quality of the light produced by a light bulb is often described as "dim" or "bright" or "colorful" or "hot" or "cold" or "shining" or ... etc.
2. The qualities we ascribe to our consciousness are are often described in any number of ways that parallel how we describe the quality of light ( above ).

1. When a light bulb is not functioning there is no scientifically verifiable evidence that it continues to produce light.
2. When a brain is not functioning there is no scientifically verifiable evidence that it continues to produce consciousness.

There are more examples, but by now you should be able to see that even if you don't presently subscribe to the light bulb analogy, based on the available evidence, it's far from being a poor analogy. It's deceptively simple, and that's why it's not given the credit it deserves.

How language makes thought I get, but how the mind-body piece works is not my specialty at all. From what I've researched it appears that John Chalmers is the man who has framed the discussion in a way that stimulated new thinking in this arena, and depending on your vantage point you might say that Goswami has answered the problem well, or hardly treated it at all. I have a feeling that Jeff might have a better ackground in this area. I read one refutation of Goswami's answer to Chalmers but it was not scholarly enough to post here. But here's the necessary reading on the subject.

I don't subscribe to the notion that all thought is language. The most important moments of connection for me involve just being, without words. I do understand that whethe it's Chalmers' dualism or Goswami's claimed monism these discussions lean a little more towards helping me to connect the para-dots than straight, traditional science. Please, if you have the time, watch the Quantum Activist ad key us know what you think.

I completely agree that, depending on how we define "thought", not all thought = language. People mostly think in sensory terms and for most of us the primary sense is visual, which means our thought process involves visualization, the content of which is not always translatable directly and accurately into labels, not to mention that it would also seem unreasonable to think that a blind person or someone who has not learned a language is not a thinking being.

I wish I could offer up more gems to sort out the fool's gold from the real material, but so much of this conversation, for me, is not rooted in a materialist framework. Perhaps I'm still hung up on Jeff's potential unified para-dot theory as those nebulous mystery items tied to consciousness, though still unproven, provides what I feel to be a more likely scenario than one body=one mind=one consciousness. There's more going on in our narratives than just this.

Well ... they say you're never alone when you're schizophrenic. Otherwise in the absence of another body with another consciousness, then it is perfectly rational to believe that one body=one mind=one consciousness. That's what makes us unique.

What do you feel is behind these if not this notion of non-local consciousness?

First let's remove the arbitrary idea of "non-locality" and deal with the essential elements that make up consciousness itself. Then we can apply what we know about that to the issue. This will take us into the realm of speculation, and require some contentious assumptions, but it will at least be based on logical extrapolation without invoking the complexity of the ideas typically associated with the non-local approach.

Assumption 01: All evidence suggests that our experience of consciousness is largely dependent on a combination of memory and sensory processing.
Assumption 02: Paranormal mental phenomena are the result of a functioning brain
Assumption 03: A functioning brain has abilities we don't yet recognize, including some sort of telepathic communication.

Assumption 03 is contentious, but based on many personal experiences and the fact that the brain is a proven transmitter and receiver of energy, telepathy requires less complexity than invoking a completely non-local source for our consciousness. So how do we fit that into the "narrative". Let's consider the idea of some kind of advanced remote viewing where we seem to see and hear what's going on in a remote location. If we accept that telepathic communication is possible, then accessing the memories of someone who has been in a particular place ( a secret base or whatever ) is not the same as actually moving one's consciousness to that location, however from an experiential point of view, if we see and hear a playback of the memories about that place, we may well get the "feeling" that our consciousness ( or part of ) it is there, when in reality the memories being accessed may belong to the brain of some guard or officer or soldier who may not even be at that particular location anymore. Now when the location is found and it turns out just as described, we might be tempted to say, "my consciousness was there" when actually it wasn't. The same kind of reasoning can be used for past lives ( reincarnation ) and other concepts that rely heavily on memory as a rationalization for belief.

 

[Burnt State]

Well ... they say you're never alone when you're schizophrenic. Otherwise in the absence of another body with another consciousness, then it is perfectly rational to believe that one body=one mind=one consciousness. That's what makes us unique.

I'm never alone when I'm near trees. I find talking to them, like talking to animals, is very relaxing and provides the illusion of sharing consciosness. Your explication of Assumption 03 left me feeling like the mechanism for accessing the memories of another person would have to entail a connection to someone else's mind or ability to project ones consciousness/mind to another location. In the same way, as with narratives about reincarnation, it seems that mind/consciosness can get more than one body. All those NDE people seem to report this other consciousness collective soup idea like those Star Trek (OS and NG) episodes where multiple entities exist in a cloud or spherical ball of light. The idea of non-locality does not appear to be that arbitrary. Goswami really helped to push that idea forward for me, but I'm very into creative new ways of thinking about a problem.

What episode was this quote from - was it Balance of Terror?

 

[Randall]

I'm never alone when I'm near trees. I find talking to them, like talking to animals, is very relaxing and provides the illusion of sharing consciosness. Your explication of Assumption 03 left me feeling like the mechanism for accessing the memories of another person would have to entail a connection to someone else's mind or ability to project ones consciousness/mind to another location. In the same way, as with narratives about reincarnation, it seems that mind/consciosness can get more than one body. All those NDE people seem to report this other consciousness collective soup idea like those Star Trek (OS and NG) episodes where multiple entities exist in a cloud or spherical ball of light. The idea of non-locality does not appear to be that arbitrary. Goswami really helped to push that idea forward for me, but I'm very into creative new ways if thinking about a problem.

What episode was this quote from - was it Balance of Terror?

I think you hit it right on the sound byte, but you might want to check Memory Alpha. Returning to Assumption 03, The idea is that because the experience of accessing a memory would have the perceptual effect as being there, it would be natural for an experiencer to incorrectly assume they are "projecting" themselves to that location, when in fact they're not.

 

[Burnt State]

My pet theory re the ufo phenomenon is a view of the universe as an information processing device (?) with our consciousness creating concepts of time and dimension as artifacts of some larger algorithm. This would presume other intelligences in charge of "programming" (with control implied) and relegate both time and space to the realm of pure information. It might account for why time seems to be a series of ever changing states instead of dimension as we normally perceive dimension. This must be a lame analogy at best.

Are you still thinking along these lines almost two years later? I've been moving through old threads lately, panning for gold, and this post caught my eye for its imaginative and holistic approach. And I sit back as usual when i read some of your quantum charged nuggets and say to myself, jeez, where does Boomerang come up with this stuff?!