Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 10

[Burnt State]

I specifically said:

"... and yes, I see all the psychological explanations, etc. etc. so please stand back and let the horse have some air."

But I figured it would be @ufology or maybe Horselover Fat who finally killed the horse.

Rest in pieces, dear horse.

I kill wild horses in my sleep routinely, but mostly because I'm haunted by The Rolling Stones' song

 

[Soupie]

The thing about these meaningful coincidences is that we rarely tabulate what stands opposite them -- all the lack of coincidence in our lives. So when something really bizarre and synchronous stands out, or when what's been buzzing in our minds suddenly appears before us because our minds are thinking about it and we are looking for meaning in the banalities of existence, we are shocked by the moment. We imbue it with the extra attention that we want to give that thing and synchronicities are born.

For myself I've become entirely ho hum about such monents as they always seem to fall into that category of being something special when it's just chance and patterns of our lives and nothing else. Yet we rarely notice how special each and every moment is and choose to hang our hats on those rare moments when two things suddenly match up. Not that I would ever deny the possibility of there being the potential for guiding patterns in our lives, I just feel that most of paranormal life comes from what we happen to be looking for as opposed to anything actually really strange taking place.

I don't disagree with this assessment but I do agree with smcder we should let the horse breathe.

(1) Yes for every synchronicity there are a thousand non-icities. And I like the idea of recognizing that every moment is a miracle. Especially when considered in the context of consciousness. Just how do we—we the organism, we the conscious subject, make any meaning, of anything? Is as science tells us every moment we experience a simulation created by billions of interacting neurons? And just how accurate a simulation of whatever-is-really-out-there-including-the-aforementioned-neurons is it?

(2) This is a bit of a stretch but did come to mind for some reason: yes, we can easily and rightfully so explain many perhaps all synchronicities away as personally meaningful coincidences. But when the day comes that machines can act, look, talk, behave and perform just like humans, there will be many who deny that they have consciousness. Just as there are some who deny that animals have consciousness. And it strikes me that we can't prove that anyone has consciousness.

And some would argue that though it feels and seems as if we the subject are causally potent, no, this too can be explained away as a coincidence.

As noted, quite a stretch. But there is a gap between the mind and body, meaning and matter that needs explaining.

 

[Constance]

. . . As for the paranormal component, given that you've been at this for 2.5 years and have rarely hit the paranormal territory it's time to force your hand and have you spontaneously cough up whatever comes to mind. . . . .

No thanks. But you might be interested in a bibliography of psi research that Steve linked here in Part 9 of the thread:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

 

[Burnt State]

I don't disagree with this assessment but I do agree with smcder we should let the horse breathe.

(1) Yes for every synchronicity there are a thousand non-icities. And I like the idea of recognizing that every moment is a miracle. Especially when considered in the context of consciousness. Just how do we—we the organism, we the conscious subject, make any meaning, of anything? Is as science tells us every moment we experience a simulation created by billions of interacting neurons? And just how accurate a simulation of whatever-is-really-out-there-including-the-aforementioned-neurons is it?

(2) This is a bit of a stretch but did come to mind for some reason: yes, we can easily and rightfully so explain many perhaps all synchronicities away as personally meaningful coincidences. But when the day comes that machines can act, look, talk, behave and perform just like humans, there will be many who deny that they have consciousness. Just as there are some who deny that animals have consciousness. And it strikes me that we can't prove that anyone has consciousness.

And some would argue that though it feels and seems as if we the subject are causally potent, no, this too can be explained away as a coincidence.

As noted, quite a stretch. But there is a gap between the mind and body, meaning and matter that needs explaining.

Ok....letting the horse breathe and accepting these moments that startle and mean things....I understand. I guess I remain puzzled as to why we are not startled by every single moment. Is it an evolutionary imperative to only notice what our individual consciousness happens to be tuned to at that time I would ask? It seems to me we are always cocreaors of every single moment that external reality provides. Our filters (our tastes, choices, preferences and preoccupations) wean out what's significant and what's useless or regular - the insignificant rhythmic patterns of day to day life. So is not that gap us, our personality and its formation over time that the in turn looks and perceives the way it does because of what it is - each perceive according to our shaping? So external matter doesn't seem to matter much except for the individual perceiver.

I am constantly struck by one friend of mine that whenever we converse about the sky or moon she is always seeing things in a much more enhanced manner: there is more nuanced colour, rich textures and fine shapes that I'm just not getting. My perceptions feel almost monochromatic up against her synesthete's mind. But then I think she was shaped into an artist and so it's necessary that she perceives as she does, curse that it is. Not that all artists have such benefits but I'm glad she does as it makes for good poetry - her translations of reality. So each of us fill in the gap as per what we are.

 

[Soupie]

Ok....letting the horse breathe and accepting these moments that startle and mean things....I understand. I guess I remain puzzled as to why we are not startled by every single moment. Is it an evolutionary imperative to only notice what our individual consciousness happens to be tuned to at that time I would ask? It seems to me we are always cocreaors of every single moment that external reality provides. Our filters (our tastes, choices, preferences and preoccupations) wean out what's significant and what's useless or regular - the insignificant rhythmic patterns of day to day life. So is not that gap us, our personality and its formation over time that the in turn looks and perceives the way it does because of what it is - each perceive according to our shaping? So external matter doesn't seem to matter much except for the individual perceiver.

I am constantly struck by one friend of mine that whenever we converse about the sky or moon she is always seeing things in a much more enhanced manner: there is more nuanced colour, rich textures and fine shapes that I'm just not getting. My perceptions feel almost monochromatic up against her synesthete's mind. But then I think she was shaped into an artist and so it's necessary that she perceives as she does, curse that it is. Not that all artists have such benefits but I'm glad she does as it makes for good poetry - her translations of reality. So each of us fill in the gap as per what we are.

I'm just playing with ideas but they're ideas that have some support.

For instance there's a legitimate theory that we are living within a computational simulation. (Distinct from the perceptual simulation of our senses.)

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?

Also, the one talk by Vallee—which I discovered thanks to you—has always had a profound influence in me. And has made me wonder if he is open to the above idea.

He describes a powerful synchronicity involving the name Melchizedek. He also shares the story of the two earth elementals that describe reality as always already existing or being continually brought into existence (which is not unlike a computer simulation).

And then there is the mystery of quantum physics. Ufology will complain of one conjuring up quantum woo, but the reality is that there is a gap between the quantum and classical worlds.

And there are some who say that mysteries of quantum mechanics make "sense" when contexualized as a computational process, rather than a classical process.

In short, the notion that reality consists of deterministic billiard balls is no longer a slam dunk. The forces guiding the evolution of our reality are deeper and more mysterious than we can fathom.

So I don't write off all "synchronicities" as merely personal oddities with only personal meaning. There is a very teeny, tiny horse breathing inside of me that says: Maybe, just maybe there just is some upper case meaning out there in the void.

 

[Burnt State]

I'm just playing with ideas but they're ideas that have some support.

For instance there's a legitimate theory that we are living within a computational simulation. (Distinct from the perceptual simulation of our senses.)

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?

Also, the one talk by Vallee—which I discovered thanks to you—has always had a profound influence in me. And has made me wonder if he is open to the above idea.

He describes a powerful synchronicity involving the name Melchizedek. He also shares the story of the two earth elementals that describe reality as always already existing or being continually brought into existence (which is not unlike a computer simulation).

And then there is the mystery of quantum physics. Ufology will complain of one conjuring up quantum woo, but the reality is that there is a gap between the quantum and classical worlds.

And there are some who say that mysteries of quantum mechanics make "sense" when contexualized as a computational process, rather than a classical process.

In short, the notion that reality consists of deterministic billiard balls is no longer a slam dunk. The forces guiding the evolution of our reality are deeper and more mysterious than we can fathom.

So I don't write off all "synchronicities" as merely personal oddities with only personal meaning. There is a very teeny, tiny horse breathing inside of me that says: Maybe, just maybe there just is some upper case meaning out there in the void.

I started reading through all the various philosophical rejections of existence on earth as an ancestor simulaion once upon a time ago and got exhausted by it all. But it did seem the the cons had better arguments than the pros.

Still, in the name of the small breathing pony that I once thought was mine (and it never was, but my parents told me it was, and caught up in the lie of horse ownership as they were, they said they had to sell it and I was five years old of agony: what right did you have to sell my horse?) I'm very open to Mac Tonnies' notion, like Vallée's, that we are living in a domain of pure information. Perhaps this simulation was forgotten to be turned off long ago, our progeny long since dead but left this self powering machine still running? So we are always hungry for a god or love because while nothing else makes sense there are some small comforts in how they make us feel. Much like the synchronicity, we get a sense that we belong when we can know such things like God or love.

Feelings - where the hell do they even come from? Maybe you can point me to where on this massive thread those get discussed?

 

[Soupie]

Feelings - where the hell do they even come from? Maybe you can point me to where on this massive thread those get discussed?

But that's the question at the heart of this discussion. From the physicalist position, that is the Hard Problem.

Many don't consider this but all consciousness involves feelings, not emotional feelings per se, but feeling. This is known as phenomenal consciousness.

Whether you're looking for discussion of the origin and nature of emotions and/or phenomenal consciousness in general, both have been discussed extensively in this thread throughout. In fact, I would say the majority of the discussion has centered on those two questions.

Re the nature/origin of emotions, search the thread for Pankseep.

Re the nature of phenomenal consciousness, we've mostly discussed information approaches such as IIT, Conscious Realism via Kafatos and Hoffman, and Panpsychism via Chalmers and Russell.

There aren't any good physical, non-information-based theories. Do a search for auotpoeisis for the best physical theory imo.

Also check out this article posted by smcder at the end of the last thread for an appreciation of just how large the gap between the mind and body remains: The Limits of Information

 

[Michael Allen]

"Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function."

Re-phrasing the "mechanism" specification component of the "easy" problem shows us all too directly why the hard problems is "hard." When we try to examine the relations (i.e. ties) regarding our interactions with the "mechanical components" we find that the answer to the question is the same as the question we started with. In order to specify a mechanism to perform a function we have to embed our own bodies into the very relations of which we are asking the question. The problem is that we try to clarify the very infrastructure to ourselves in a language of meaning the excludes the our interactivity within--and through--the same infrastructure which gave us the sense that something needed to be questioned. The source of our ability to question is at question, and when we turn our analysis to that ability we end up recursively falling into a bottomless pit. Recognizing that such a move has this property is the first step in understanding our fundamental and necessary misunderstanding of being. Because our "average and daily understanding of being" is a mirage.

 

[smcder]

"Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function."

Re-phrasing the "mechanism" specification component of the "easy" problem shows us all too directly why the hard problems is "hard." When we try to examine the relations (i.e. ties) regarding our interactions with the "mechanical components" we find that the answer to the question is the same as the question we started with. In order to specify a mechanism to perform a function we have to embed our own bodies into the very relations of which we are asking the question. The problem is that we try to clarify the very infrastructure to ourselves in a language of meaning the excludes the our interactivity within--and through--the same infrastructure which gave us the sense that something needed to be questioned. The source of our ability to question is at question, and when we turn our analysis to that ability we end up recursively falling into a bottomless pit. Recognizing that such a move has this property is the first step in understanding our fundamental and necessary misunderstanding of being. Because our "average and daily understanding of being" is a mirage.

Profession Jokes

 

[smcder]

Tiny horses,
In the mind,
Tiny horses (tiny horses)
In the mind (in the mind)
Make me happy (make me happy)
Make me feel fine (make me feel fine)

Tiny horses (tiny horses)
Startle me all over
With a feeling that I'm only
A simulation in time

So here's to the Ray Kurzweil
And here's to the Jacque Vallee
But mostly here's a red pill
For you and me

 

[smcder]

@Michael Allen sez:

"Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function."

Re-phrasing the "mechanism" specification component of the "easy" problem shows us all too directly why the hard problems is "hard." When we try to examine the relations (i.e. ties) regarding our interactions with the "mechanical components" we find that the answer to the question is the same as the question we started with. In order to specify a mechanism to perform a function we have to embed our own bodies into the very relations of which we are asking the question. The problem is that we try to clarify the very infrastructure to ourselves in a language of meaning the excludes the our interactivity within--and through--the same infrastructure which gave us the sense that something needed to be questioned. The source of our ability to question is at question, and when we turn our analysis to that ability we end up recursively falling into a bottomless pit. Recognizing that such a move has this property is the first step in understanding our fundamental and necessary misunderstanding of being. Because our "average and daily understanding of being" is a mirage.

David Chalmers, the El Vez of philosophers, might put it this way:

We're caught in a trap
We can't walk out
Because das Man ist frei zu sein

Why can't you see
The meaning of Be
It's mired in recursivity?

We can't go on together
With synthetic minds (synthetic minds)
And we can't build our dreams
In synthetic minds ...

The King of Purple prose is dead ... Long live the King!

 

[Soupie]

The source of our ability to question is at question, and when we turn our analysis to that ability we end up recursively falling into a bottomless pit. Recognizing that such a move has this property is the first step in understanding our fundamental and necessary misunderstanding of being. Because our "average and daily understanding of being" is a mirage.

As always, the caveat that the meaning I take from your writing is likely not the meaning you mean it to mean. In any case, the apparent fundamental inability of the questioner to ask relevant questions regarding the nature of its ability to question is not unlike, I think, the problem I've been articulating of the perceiver attempting to accurately perceive the nature of its perceptual apparatus.

I'd still like you to attempt to articulate why you insist that misunderstanding is a necessary condition of being and/or consciousness. I have my own ideas of why this might be, but they're likely worlds away from your conception. I think of it in terms of singularity versus differentiation.

 

[Burnt State]

But that's the question at the heart of this discussion. From the physicalist position, that is the Hard Problem.

Many don't consider this but all consciousness involves feelings, not emotional feelings per se, but feeling. This is known as phenomenal consciousness.

Whether you're looking for discussion of the origin and nature of emotions and/or phenomenal consciousness in general, both have been discussed extensively in this thread throughout. In fact, I would say the majority of the discussion has centered on those two questions.

Re the nature/origin of emotions, search the thread for Pankseep.

Re the nature of phenomenal consciousness, we've mostly discussed information approaches such as IIT, Conscious Realism via Kafatos and Hoffman, and Panpsychism via Chalmers and Russell.

There aren't any good physical, non-information-based theories. Do a search for auotpoeisis for the best physical theory imo.

Also check out this article posted by smcder at the end of the last thread for an appreciation of just how large the gap between the mind and body remains: The Limits of Information

Thank you very much for the article which led to a series of related articles on that site. All excellent material. Initially, though, it strikes me that our experience of vs. our knowing of reality is basically paradox. In fact while I can not extract my perceptions of reality from any kind of external "truth" I suspect that if I could I would only be getting deeper into the paradox of a strange existence that I am somehow a part of.

 

[Randall]

I was asked a while back to participate in one of the Paracast radio discussions on the ufo subject but declined.

If your participation here is any indication of how well you present yourself, you'd make an excellent guest! Besides, I've done it so now it's your turn . A round table on the whole consciousness discussion would be cool and wouldn't be complete without you!

 

[smcder]

If your participation here is any indication of how well you present yourself, you'd make an excellent guest! Besides, I've done it so now it's your turn . A round table on the whole consciousness discussion would be cool and wouldn't be complete without you!

There are no "turns" and there are no hands to be forced.

 

[smcder]

Thank you very much for the article which led to a series of related articles on that site. All excellent material. Initially, though, it strikes me that our experience of vs. our knowing of reality is basically paradox. In fact while I can not extract my perceptions of reality from any kind of external "truth" I suspect that if I could I would only be getting deeper into the paradox of a strange existence that I am somehow a part of.

If you are serious about not just consciousness but POM, read the primary texts ... and we'll see you in a few years.

 

[smcder]

As always, the caveat that the meaning I take from your writing is likely not the meaning you mean it to mean. In any case, the apparent fundamental inability of the questioner to ask relevant questions regarding the nature of its ability to question is not unlike, I think, the problem I've been articulating of the perceiver attempting to accurately perceive the nature of its perceptual apparatus.

I'd still like you to attempt to articulate why you insist that misunderstanding is a necessary condition of being and/or consciousness. I have my own ideas of why this might be, but they're likely worlds away from your conception. I think of it in terms of singularity versus differentiation.

My initial sense is that @Michael Allen 's logic (and there are many logics) isn't wrong in itself but that it's not suited for the job. One of the differences, at least for now, between minds and what we call computers is that minds understand natural languages - the ambiguity of which is necessary for the communication of what John Watling called "the logic of ordinary human intelligence". In this logic, we would say that Michael takes the thing too literally. There is a lot of slide and wiggle, a lot of judgement and appreciation of feeling and tone - things that are "intolerated" in formal languages.

 

[smcder]

As always, the caveat that the meaning I take from your writing is likely not the meaning you mean it to mean. In any case, the apparent fundamental inability of the questioner to ask relevant questions regarding the nature of its ability to question is not unlike, I think, the problem I've been articulating of the perceiver attempting to accurately perceive the nature of its perceptual apparatus.

I'd still like you to attempt to articulate why you insist that misunderstanding is a necessary condition of being and/or consciousness. I have my own ideas of why this might be, but they're likely worlds away from your conception. I think of it in terms of singularity versus differentiation.

Recursivity, paradox ... illusion/mirage are good examples of the need for an intelligent being to recognize and step out of loops ... i.e. why we need "artificial common sense" not AI. An ACS system might not develop AI+ for starters.

Are there loops that can be recognized but not stepped out of? Or at least not stepped into?

This is why I said that if @Michael Allen 's right about the fatality of centroid slicing ... then he ... and us with him are already dead.

And yet ...

QED

 

[Michael Allen]

As always, the caveat that the meaning I take from your writing is likely not the meaning you mean it to mean. In any case, the apparent fundamental inability of the questioner to ask relevant questions regarding the nature of its ability to question is not unlike, I think, the problem I've been articulating of the perceiver attempting to accurately perceive the nature of its perceptual apparatus.

I'd still like you to attempt to articulate why you insist that misunderstanding is a necessary condition of being and/or consciousness. I have my own ideas of why this might be, but they're likely worlds away from your conception. I think of it in terms of singularity versus differentiation.

Hard to say. I will try to illustrate it this way: that we are able to recognize our own instances of "misunderstanding" may indicate a fundamental framework that is also too transparent to be visible to our reflections. We conceptualize our world through this interface and build a "world" of "related" objects which exist in our faculty of simulation. Before we can even ascertain the pure nature of being, we are caught up in the very "objects" of our own self-world-self-simulation through the same framework which allows such presentations. We then begin to formulate our own "objects" within our simulation matrix (of ourselves in the world with other objects) about those objects. At some point our ability to discriminate differences in our world are driven by the very boundaries between "understanding" and not "understanding"--thus we formulate 2nd or 3rd order abstractions as "placeholders" for these questions. We reify our inability to comprehend into buckets of questioning...to be put off later but yet continually used. Perfect example is the flow of an electron through a wire, in a circuit forming relations of the same. We have no real idea what precisely an "electron" (a label) is, but we use it to capture and manipulate our categories or "notes" regarding boundaries of knowing/unknowing. It is as if the entire physical world was a very complicated nexus of symbols whereby we perform the most fantastic "algebra" to manipulate and move around (or even coalesce) the "unknowns." The very framework or space of transformations applied to these unknowns become something like knowing about which we do not really know. Physicalists can pretend that putting relations and labels on all of these boundaries of perception make up for this "unknowing" and others with lose their tempers trying to point out the 500lb gorilla in the room. The answer of course (or the consolation rather) is to explain to the detractor that such observations are "obvious" and need no further examination. Which of course exposes a hypocrisy on both sides...both for the investigators of the remaining indissoluble elements and those who claim that such indissoluble elements will eventually be broken into further components.

Zealots on either side will claim victory based on the other failure to complete the description of reality they wish to find, but neither will realize that their inability to complete such a project results in the same answer and in fact gives them their powers of zeal.

 

[Michael Allen]

Recursivity, paradox ... illusion/mirage are good examples of the need for an intelligent being to recognize and step out of loops ... i.e. why we need "artificial common sense" not AI. An ACS system might not develop AI+ for starters.

Are there loops that can be recognized but not stepped out of? Or at least not stepped into?

This is why I said that if @Michael Allen 's right about the fatality of centroid slicing ... then he ... and us with him are already dead.

And yet ...

QED

Maybe not. I can be right and we are mostly dead--%-wise with respect to the immense timescape of the universe.

Its obvious to the universe that we are "not dead yet." And yet...