Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 10

[smcder]

I haven't read the article yet, but at first blush it sounds like the shadow physics we discussed a while back ... I'll see if I can find the posts.

John Hagelin - I think it was "Buddha at the Gas Pump" interview and transcript - way back here in the threads, should be easy to find.

 

[smcder]

https://batgap.com/transcripts/213_John-Hagelin-transcript.pdf

and here I think is where we started the discussion in CandP

Consciousness and the Paranormal

 

[William Strathmann]

https://batgap.com/transcripts/213_John-Hagelin-transcript.pdf

and here I think is where we started the discussion in CandP

Consciousness and the Paranormal

Thank you smcder. I'll have a look. It sounds interesting.

As far as quantum woo police . . . meh, I've been on the Theism worldview trail for forty years, so it's not a matter of facing opposing opinions, but rather how much I want to invest into a discussion. I don't have bunches of time these days.



Thanks again.

 

[smcder]

Thank you smcder. I'll have a look. It sounds interesting.

As far as quantum woo police . . . meh, I've been on the Theism worldview trail for forty years, so it's not a matter of facing opposing opinions, but rather how much I want to invest into a discussion. I don't have bunches of time these days.



Thanks again.

I'm the same way ... but with energy - live and let be wrong, I say ... ;-)

 

[Constance]

https://batgap.com/transcripts/213_John-Hagelin-transcript.pdf

and here I think is where we started the discussion in CandP

Consciousness and the Paranormal

Amazing that you were able to trace back to that discussion, Steve. It seems we discussed all this as early as Part I of the thread, back in 2014. Here is a post summarizing what appear to be Hagelin's main points:

Consciousness and the Paranormal

We might read that and the subsequent posts at this point so as not to have to repeat what we said back then, and then add any new theories and speculations that have developed since.

 

[Constance]

ps, I'm very glad we're having this particular discussion again.

 

[Constance]

One of Stevens's last poems . . .


Not Ideas About the Thing But the Thing Itself

At the earliest ending of winter,
In March, a scrawny cry from outside
Seemed like a sound in his mind.

He knew that he heard it,
A bird’s cry at daylight or before,
In the early March wind.

The sun was rising at six,
No longer a battered panache above snow . . .
It would have been outside.

It was not from the vast ventriloquism
Of sleep’s faded papier mâché . . .
The sun was coming from outside.

That scrawny cry—it was
A chorister whose c preceded the choir.
It was part of the colossal sun,

Surrounded by its choral rings,
Still far away. It was like
A new knowledge of reality.

Wallace Stevens, 1879 - 1955

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

The elements of Ghosts? whatever they are and can it manipulate dark matter and able to create an electrical formation of artificial continuous intelligence? ACI.

 

[Randall]

Here is a link to an article by a Fermi Lab physicist, Don Lincoln, who lays out the evidence for a smaller realm of physics than is currently known in the Standard Model.

The question I ask is if such a sub-level of physics actually exists, could it have its own smaller version of a Standard Model "particle zoo" of particles that we cannot detect, but that could support the existence of intelligent entities?

If that is possible, or if it is actually real, then that could be part of the explanation for "spirit" beings that have been reported for millenia. As I mentioned in a post a few pages ago, such a level of physics might be crucial for our own consciousness as well, and could be the basis for a part of each person's reality beyond the usual physical particles of the Standard Model.

Something along these lines would explain several experiences I've had, and it's also why I sometimes engage assertions that are essentially unprovable from a typical empirical point of view.

Interesting article, and it's always interesting to speculate, but there are probably better theories for your experiences. All mathematical models are abstract descriptions that help to predict the behavior of things, and may not actually represent anything real at all. The one thing that the version in the article you linked to has in common with the standard model is that it still represents the basic building blocks from which things are made.

Consequently we run into the same situation as we do when we casually invoke additional spatial dimensions, which is to gloss over the situation that each successive layer is dependent on the existence of the preceding layer in order to exist, and therefore each is codependent on the other. In other words, if an electron has an inner structure like the article uses as an example, then the electron requires that inner structure to exist. It cannot go floating around independent of what is required for it to exist in the first place.

That results in the situation that even if there is a structured sub-layer, everything we experience is still built-up the same way, but just from smaller parts. So it doesn't add-up to two separate realities, like what you seem to be hinting at. However that doesn't mean that people don't have strange experiences, and I'd like to hear more about yours. Maybe there's something about them that can provide clues to what is really going on. So please feel free to point us to any previous posts where you've described your experiences, or feel free to share them again here.

 

[William Strathmann]

https://batgap.com/transcripts/213_John-Hagelin-transcript.pdf

From what I get out of this article, this fellow seems to think that the supposed unified basement conscious reality begins just under the planck length. As I understand things, the planck length is where strings are speculated to exist. So he speculates that just below what makes up the Standard Model is where the basement consciousness begins, if I understand the dialog.

The point of the article that I linked is that there may be a lot more structure below the planck length. The following 4min 45 sec vid talks about the operation of the "quantum foam" and how the Standard Model particle zoo of reality emerges from it. I am speculating that the "quantum foam" has its own structures and possibly its own "particle zoo." As I've said, if there is this particle zoo at that level, then perhaps there are structures at that level that contribute to the "larger" structures at the Standard Model level, and thus there might be some real part of our being, our consciousness that is directly involved with physical structures that as yet we cannot see. What we know as the Standard Model particle zoo depends on this level of reality.

So it doesn't add-up to two separate realities, like what you seem to be hinting at.

Separate realities??? Duhhhh.

 

[Soupie]

@William Strathmann

A phenomenon you are probably already aware of—but if not will want to follow—is the recent, multiply-confirmed existence of gravitational waves.

Gravitational waves propagate through spacetime itself. I won't pretend to understand what spacetime is but there some researches who argue that gravitational waves indicate that spacetime itself is quantized, indicating a particle zoo beneath the one defined by the standard model.

 

[Randall]

... then perhaps there are structures at that level that contribute to the "larger" structures at the Standard Model level, and thus there might be some real part of our being, our consciousness that is directly involved with physical structures that as yet we cannot see. What we know as the Standard Model particle zoo depends on this level of reality.

Sure. But the trick question is "What kind of involvement?" Everything is "involved" with everything else in some way shape or form, but that doesn't necessarily translate to an explanation for the experiences you say you had, which is why I asked if you could share more about those experiences, so that we could see if it makes sense to associate the two in a causal way.

Separate realities??? Duhhhh.

You need to elaborate on that because it's not clear to me what you mean by it.

 

[Randall]

... As far as quantum woo police . . . meh, I've been on the Theism worldview trail for forty years, so it's not a matter of facing opposing opinions, but rather how much I want to invest into a discussion. I don't have bunches of time these days.

I went back and forth between non-theist and theist interpretations until I was in my mid 30s when I hit on the idea that a theist worldview requires a belief in a deity and that can only happen through the process of deification, which is something that we humans do. At that point it made no difference whether or not there actually is or isn't a universe creator, but whether or not any universe creator deserves to be deified, and ultimately, although some humans find satisfaction in deifying this or that, I really didn't see the point, and figured that any being deserving of deification wouldn't be so egotistical and self-serving to actually want to be deified in the first place. So theism became shallow, and I moved on.

That was a couple of decades ago and I'm that much further along the path because of it. I also still talk to people as much as time permits because I certainly don't have all the answers, and I don't want to become complacent in some personally comfortable belief system that doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the situation we're in. The problem with that is that people are often so deeply invested in their own personal belief systems that when I try to explore the weak spots that might lead to a breakthrough, they get defensive. It's as if they don't actually want to make any breakthrough and only want to hear what reinforces their existing beliefs. In psychology this is called Selective Exposure Theory, and it's fairly commonplace.

​

 

[smcder]

One of Stevens's last poems . . .


Not Ideas About the Thing But the Thing Itself

At the earliest ending of winter,
In March, a scrawny cry from outside
Seemed like a sound in his mind.

He knew that he heard it,
A bird’s cry at daylight or before,
In the early March wind.

The sun was rising at six,
No longer a battered panache above snow . . .
It would have been outside.

It was not from the vast ventriloquism
Of sleep’s faded papier mâché . . .
The sun was coming from outside.

That scrawny cry—it was
A chorister whose c preceded the choir.
It was part of the colossal sun,

Surrounded by its choral rings,
Still far away. It was like
A new knowledge of reality.

Wallace Stevens, 1879 - 1955

There are four readings of this poem by the poet himself and an episode of Poem Talk discussing it's meaning at this link:

PennSound: Wallace Stevens

 

[smcder]

One of Stevens's last poems . . .


Not Ideas About the Thing But the Thing Itself

At the earliest ending of winter,
In March, a scrawny cry from outside
Seemed like a sound in his mind.

He knew that he heard it,
A bird’s cry at daylight or before,
In the early March wind.

The sun was rising at six,
No longer a battered panache above snow . . .
It would have been outside.

It was not from the vast ventriloquism
Of sleep’s faded papier mâché . . .
The sun was coming from outside.

That scrawny cry—it was
A chorister whose c preceded the choir.
It was part of the colossal sun,

Surrounded by its choral rings,
Still far away. It was like
A new knowledge of reality.

Wallace Stevens, 1879 - 1955

I don't think there's a transcript of the Poem Talk episode ... but there are notes -

It's like a new reality, man (PoemTalk #14) | Jacket2

this is a fascinating bit:

Anyone who deals with this poem has to understand the rhetorical gist of Stevens's “like”: the cry he thinks he hears seemed “like” a sound in his mind; it was “like” a new knowledge of reality. Charles half-jokes that it’s anachronistically (and uncharacteristically) a 1960s like: a cool “very,” an intensifer, a pause. Al tries to stipulate that this is a Keats-at-the-casement poem: he’s inside, looking out and hearing minimal late-winter birdsong. But Larry believes firmly in the radical open-ness of this poem: we are neither inside nor out. There is no conventional place of standing. “Three times in the poem,” Nada has written elsewhere, “he says the sound was coming ‘from outside.’ But I don’t believe him. How can I believe this from a poet whose ‘actual candle blazed with artifice’?”

 

[smcder]

I don't think there's a transcript of the Poem Talk episode ... but there are notes -

It's like a new reality, man (PoemTalk #14) | Jacket2

this is a fascinating bit:

Anyone who deals with this poem has to understand the rhetorical gist of Stevens's “like”: the cry he thinks he hears seemed “like” a sound in his mind; it was “like” a new knowledge of reality. Charles half-jokes that it’s anachronistically (and uncharacteristically) a 1960s like: a cool “very,” an intensifer, a pause. Al tries to stipulate that this is a Keats-at-the-casement poem: he’s inside, looking out and hearing minimal late-winter birdsong. But Larry believes firmly in the radical open-ness of this poem: we are neither inside nor out. There is no conventional place of standing. “Three times in the poem,” Nada has written elsewhere, “he says the sound was coming ‘from outside.’ But I don’t believe him. How can I believe this from a poet whose ‘actual candle blazed with artifice’?”

Poem Talk was so-so. I didn't care for Nada Gordons rewrite.

 

[smcder]

I went back and forth between non-theist and theist interpretations until I was in my mid 30s when I hit on the idea that a theist worldview requires a belief in a deity and that can only happen through the process of deification, which is something that we humans do. At that point it made no difference whether or not there actually is or isn't a universe creator, but whether or not any universe creator deserves to be deified, and ultimately, although some humans find satisfaction in deifying this or that, I really didn't see the point, and figured that any being deserving of deification wouldn't be so egotistical and self-serving to actually want to be deified in the first place. So theism became shallow, and I moved on.

That was a couple of decades ago and I'm that much further along the path because of it. I also still talk to people as much as time permits because I certainly don't have all the answers, and I don't want to become complacent in some personally comfortable belief system that doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the situation we're in. The problem with that is that people are often so deeply invested in their own personal belief systems that when I try to explore the weak spots that might lead to a breakthrough, they get defensive. It's as if they don't actually want to make any breakthrough and only want to hear what reinforces their existing beliefs. In psychology this is called Selective Exposure Theory, and it's fairly commonplace.

​

The thing about psychological principles is to look how they may apply to oneself - maybe it's cliche, but it seems we focus on the very ones that are most applicable to us, although we want to apply them to others. How have you looked at whether Selective Exposure Theory plays a role in your own beliefs?

I think theism can be very rich and deification/worship is one of the things that draws people to religion - the experience and practices - regardless of "intelligence" or doctrinal investment. Hillary Putnam, known for changing his mind (a wonderful indicator of "intelligence" in my book - and I think rare among his contemporaries) revisited his Jewish roots at the end of his life.

What is the "path" and what does it mean to be much further along it?

 

[Constance]

"Anyone who deals with this poem has to understand the rhetorical gist of Stevens's “like”: the cry he thinks he hears seemed “like” a sound in his mind; it was “like” a new knowledge of reality. Charles half-jokes that it’s anachronistically (and uncharacteristically) a 1960s like: a cool “very,” an intensifer, a pause. Al tries to stipulate that this is a Keats-at-the-casement poem: he’s inside, looking out and hearing minimal late-winter birdsong. But Larry believes firmly in the radical open-ness of this poem: we are neither inside nor out. There is no conventional place of standing. “Three times in the poem,” Nada has written elsewhere, “he says the sound was coming ‘from outside.’ But I don’t believe him. How can I believe this from a poet whose ‘actual candle blazed with artifice’?”

Thanks for linking this commentary. I'm looking forward to listening to this discussion, and also to reading what Nada has written {but first have to find a way to get invited into the blog since my google ID does not open it}.

 

[smcder]

Thanks for linking this commentary. I'm looking forward to listening to this discussion, and also to reading what Nada has written {but first have to find a way to get invited into the blog since my google ID does not open it}.

The podcast is ok - interesting to see the various interpretations ... there is also a Yale online course with several lectures on Stephens that I've been listening to:

Open Yale Courses | Modern Poetry | Lecture 19 - Wallace Stevens

... each lecture has a transcript, so you could skim through to see if there is anything worth your time.

 

[smcder]

The Tilde Fallacy and Reincarnation: Variations on a "Skeptical" Argument.