Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 12

[Michael Allen]

The 'knowing' that precedes language and categorical thinking is understanding that arises mutely in prereflective consciousness through interpersonal experience.

Yes

 

[Michael Allen]

Schizophrenic autism is not a "normal healthy" situation, so although it's interesting as a tangent, it's not relevant to the point. But even in these cases, the functioning at the base level remains the same, e.g. the neurons in schizophrenics and normal people are both bio-electrical relays that if observed on an individual scale would likely be almost indistinguishable from one another in terms of function. However, how the persons they are part of behave, is a whole other matter. I will check out the paper and respond separately to that when I have more time.

On the contrary, the observation of "abnormalities" identified may actually point to clues that will help us understand the "normal functioning"--it may even help us dispense with a purely functional model of consciousness

 

[Constance]

“Instead of directly addressing the Hard problem, a possibly more productive direction might be to consider putative functions of consciousness, namely, cognitive functions that require consciousness in the sense of being awake and able to report stimulus contents with confidence. Here, we consider consciousness both in terms of the state of consciousness (e.g. wakefulness) and the contents of consciousness (e.g. awareness of specific sensory stimuli).”
They seem to be focusing on what function the contents of consciousness seem to be correlated with rather than trying to establish a direct causal relationship between p consciousness and physical processes.

I think this is wise bc as we’ve discussed re recent articles, the concept of neural correlates of consciousness does not imply a causal relationship.

And yet in the terms you cite and discuss one has the impression that 'neural correlates' are indeed implied to be causal since they limit and shape that which can be thought and acted upon.

Also, in your first paragraph, or perhaps quote from Joshua, the concept of consciousness is severely reductive:

"Instead of directly addressing the Hard problem, a possibly more productive direction might be to consider putative functions of consciousness, namely, cognitive functions that require consciousness in the sense of being awake and able to report stimulus contents with confidence. Here, we consider consciousness both in terms of the state of consciousness (e.g. wakefulness) and the contents of consciousness (e.g. awareness of specific sensory stimuli).”

Surely consciousness includes many more 'states' than that of simply being awake. What are those states and what brings them about, e.g., immediate or mourned events in one's past, emotional needs, sudden attacks of the heart, political outrage or despair, imminent divorce, etc etc., not to mention moods arising from the subconscious mind: impulses, reactions, intentions continually operating in the prereflective consciousness that continues to operate within us, influencing what we know, think, or feel at subliminal levels. Maybe ask a psychotherapist how many 'states' of consciousness they discover in their patients as well as in their office staff, or ask yourself how many states of consciousness you've experienced in the last week.

 

[Michael Allen]

So all this time the entire discussion runs in circles because of the question why is it [i.e. we? or you? or some other ...] conscious?

Damn "why" questions....where's my wine bottle.

 

[Constance]

Schizophrenic autism is not a "normal healthy" situation, so although it's interesting as a tangent, it's not relevant to the point.

What is a 'normal healthy situation' and how much of the human race would you include in this group? And why are people who do not fall into what you consider a 'normal healthy' situation not "revelant to the point." What point do you think we are discussing?

I'll wait until you've read the paper and comment again before responding to your next paragraph.

But even in these cases, the functioning at the base level remains the same, e.g. the neurons in schizophrenics and normal people are both bio-electrical relays that if observed on an individual scale would likely be almost indistinguishable from one another in terms of function. However, how the persons they are part of behave, is a whole other matter. I will check out the paper and respond separately to that when I have more time.

 

[Constance]

On the contrary, the observation of "abnormalities" identified may actually point to clues that will help us understand the "normal functioning"--it may even help us dispense with a purely functional model of consciousness

Yes, understanding how neurological [so-called 'wiring'] differences influence consciousnesss might well "help us dispense with a purely functional model of consciousness," which we should long ago have dispensed with.

 

[Constance]

So all this time the entire discussion runs in circles because of the question why is it [i.e. we? or you? or some other ...] conscious?

Damn "why" questions....where's my wine bottle.

Fascinating questions, but have a glass of wine anyway.

 

[Michael Allen]

Yes, understanding how neurological [so-called 'wiring'] differences influence consciousnesss might well "help us dispense with a purely functional model of consciousness," which we should long ago have dispensed with.

It is necessary to dispense with the functional model precisely because our minds use this model to understand it's embedded "existence" in the world which brought about both. But to dispense with it is to actually expand on the sheath of reality which allowed such models to arrive...to study consciousness we must work backward...not forward.

 

[Randall]

On the contrary ...

On the contrary to what specifically?

... the observation of "abnormalities" identified may actually point to clues that will help us understand the "normal functioning"--it may even help us dispense with a purely functional model of consciousness

Because of the wink, I'm now .

 

[Michael Allen]

On the contrary to what specifically?
Because of the wink, I'm now .

"Schizophrenic autism is not a "normal healthy" situation, so although it's interesting as a tangent, it's not relevant to the point."

We can [on the contrary] learn much from deviations from what is considered "normal" or "healthy" -- within these "tangents" we can deconstruct and observe structures which would have otherwise remained forever hidden that formed the basis of what we are trying to investigate.

Thomas Metzinger, for instance, finds these tangents very helpful (as do many others, but this is the first example that comes to mind):

 

[Farlig Gulstein]

@Farlig Gulstein, I've finished reading your transcription and am grateful to you for providing it. Have you referred this case to the University of Virginia Department of Psychology? I'll get an address for you and post it here, though it might be best if you simply email what you've provided here and the linked transcription to the current director of the program in reincarnation studies. I've forgotten his name but will find it (I have a recent book on reincarnation by him) and contact him to get his email address.

It was fascinating to learn that there was a connection between Waj’di, the English speaking man in the Druze community who had spent time five years before among a Druze population in London and perhaps knew a member of that community who had been killed. Much more needs to be learned about that individual and the date and circumstances of his death. The usual situation in reincarnation cases is that reincarnations occur fairly soon after the death of the preceding person, and most frequently the former individual has died a violent death in young adulthood. As Ian Stephenson showed, many of the small children reporting memories of past lives carry scars at the bodily locations where the previous individual was shot or otherwise mortally wounded. It seems most likely to me that a young Druze man in London might well want to reincarnate part of himself in the location of his original home.

Hi Constance. Glad you were able to read it. I haven't sent the transcript anywhere, but please feel free to send it if you like. I've attached a slightly revised version with a correction: the program on which this episode appeared has had fifteen seasons, not five. I've also added an additional designator - producer - in the transcript so that it's a little easier to tell who is speaking.

I've also added a few words at the beginning to briefly explain why I don't find the hoax scenario compelling. Professionals whose names are given during the show, and who have been concerned with the child's development saw that the child was speaking English regularly but hardly any Arabic, and that his Arabic was deficient according to the child's age. So, if the child was a genius at picking up English, why didn't he also pick up Arabic? And that question is asked several times in the video and it is in the transcript. The neighbor Waj'di, who speaks English with the boy, says that the child was speaking English with him the first time he came over. Waj'di did not teach him. Waj'di also said that he has tried to teach his own children English, but they are not anywhere near this child's capability. Finally, there is no compelling reason for this program originating in Tel Aviv by secular Israeli Jews to push for a Druze case of reincarnation, especially if there was no real evidence behind it. The Druze themselves, as a small community in Israel, have no impetus to hoax evidence, because if a Druze family hoaxes something, the entire community will bear the stigma of being discovered as hoaxers, if that's what they did.

So, I think there is evidence of some very unusual situation with the child.

That said, I understand the idea and draw of reincarnation, and I've looked at Ian Stevenson's work, here, for example. But I don't think the data can prove that. Reincarnation says incorporeal sentient entites can incarnate in a human being. Reincarnation says that the incorporeal sentient entites previously lived as mortal humans. I would simply ask, what if there is a class of incorporeal entities that are not mortal humans, but who have lived alongside humans for millenia, and who can nevertheless influence human beings to the very depth of a human's consciousness, as seems to occur in all manner of paranormal phenomena? There is also cultural testimony of such entities as much as for reincarnation. So, I don't think reincarnation is a slam dunk by any means.

 

[Soupie]

And yet in the terms you cite and discuss one has the impression that 'neural correlates' are indeed implied to be causal since they limit and shape that which can be thought and acted upon.

Their relationship is one of identity rather than causal.

Also, in your first paragraph, or perhaps quote from Joshua, the concept of consciousness is severely reductive:

"Instead of directly addressing the Hard problem, a possibly more productive direction might be to consider putative functions of consciousness, namely, cognitive functions that require consciousness in the sense of being awake and able to report stimulus contents with confidence. Here, we consider consciousness both in terms of the state of consciousness (e.g. wakefulness) and the contents of consciousness (e.g. awareness of specific sensory stimuli).”

Surely consciousness includes many more 'states' than that of simply being awake. What are those states and what brings them about, e.g., immediate or mourned events in one's past, emotional needs, sudden attacks of the heart, political outrage or despair, imminent divorce, etc etc., not to mention moods arising from the subconscious mind: impulses, reactions, intentions continually operating in the prereflective consciousness that continues to operate within us, influencing what we know, think, or feel at subliminal levels. Maybe ask a psychotherapist how many 'states' of consciousness they discover in their patients as well as in their office staff, or ask yourself how many states of consciousness you've experienced in the last week.

I agree that the contents of consciousness extend far beyond sensory stimuli. However the authors acknowledge this elsewhere when they state that the contents of consciousness amount to models of environment and self, specifically including counterfactual models of world and self.

 

[Constance]

Their relationship is one of identity rather than causal."

That sounds like the claim we heard 30 years ago from the Churchlands that "we are our neurons." What is the difference, if there is one, between that belief and the system Joshua Berg is describing?

I agree that the contents of consciousness extend far beyond sensory stimuli. However the authors acknowledge this elsewhere when they state that the contents of consciousness amount to models of environment and self, specifically including counterfactual models of world and self.

So why do neurons and neural nets need to produce 'models of environment and self' when we ourselves originally find ourselves, recognize ourselves, as existing holistically within a complex environment that we must gradually learn to navigate through innumerable contingencies we encounter, and in and by that process recognize that our experience is tacitly 'self-experiential' even in prereflective consciousness. It seems that you and your sources avoid, or fail to comprehend, these experientially discovered grounds of existential awareness, feeling, consciousness, and thought, and assume that our neurons experience reflective, higher-order thought out of which they construct models of 'what-is'. My next question is 'how' do neurons do this.

 

[Constance]

"Schizophrenic autism is not a "normal healthy" situation, so although it's interesting as a tangent, it's not relevant to the point."

We can [on the contrary] learn much from deviations from what is considered "normal" or "healthy" -- within these "tangents" we can deconstruct and observe structures which would have otherwise remained forever hidden that formed the basis of what we are trying to investigate.

I agree that progress in investigating genetic and neurological predispositions to relational differences between persons on the autistic and schizophrenic spectrums can help us to better understand the relationship between the body and consciousness/mind, and thus make progress in our thinking about the so-called mind/body problem, as well as improving the potential understanding of and therapies supporting persons finding themselves existing within these spectrums.

Thomas Metzinger, for instance, finds these tangents very helpful (as do many others, but this is the first example that comes to mind) . . . .

I haven't found that Metzinger sheds light on the deep nature and complexity of consciousness or on the lived experiences of varieties of conscious beings in the world we inhabit. I think he is for some reason blind to [or averse to engaging the subject of] the nature of subjectivity and intersubjectivity as experienced and expressed in humans and indeed in many other animals -- capacities that are preeminently developed by and through direct lived experiences among and with others in the tangible phenomal presence of our actual environing world.

 

[Constance]

Hi Constance. Glad you were able to read it. I haven't sent the transcript anywhere, but please feel free to send it if you like. I've attached a slightly revised version with a correction: the program on which this episode appeared has had fifteen seasons, not five. I've also added an additional designator - producer - in the transcript so that it's a little easier to tell who is speaking.

I've also added a few words at the beginning to briefly explain why I don't find the hoax scenario compelling. Professionals whose names are given during the show, and who have been concerned with the child's development saw that the child was speaking English regularly but hardly any Arabic, and that his Arabic was deficient according to the child's age. So, if the child was a genius at picking up English, why didn't he also pick up Arabic? And that question is asked several times in the video and it is in the transcript. The neighbor Waj'di, who speaks English with the boy, says that the child was speaking English with him the first time he came over. Waj'di did not teach him. Waj'di also said that he has tried to teach his own children English, but they are not anywhere near this child's capability. Finally, there is no compelling reason for this program originating in Tel Aviv by secular Israeli Jews to push for a Druze case of reincarnation, especially if there was no real evidence behind it. The Druze themselves, as a small community in Israel, have no impetus to hoax evidence, because if a Druze family hoaxes something, the entire community will bear the stigma of being discovered as hoaxers, if that's what they did.

So, I think there is evidence of some very unusual situation with the child.

That said, I understand the idea and draw of reincarnation, and I've looked at Ian Stevenson's work, here, for example. But I don't think the data can prove that. Reincarnation says incorporeal sentient entites can incarnate in a human being. Reincarnation says that the incorporeal sentient entites previously lived as mortal humans. I would simply ask, what if there is a class of incorporeal entities that are not mortal humans, but who have lived alongside humans for millenia, and who can nevertheless influence human beings to the very depth of a human's consciousness, as seems to occur in all manner of paranormal phenomena? There is also cultural testimony of such entities as much as for reincarnation. So, I don't think reincarnation is a slam dunk by any means.

 

[Soupie]

That sounds like the claim we heard 30 years ago from the Churchlands that "we are our neurons." What is the difference, if there is one, between that belief and the system Joshua Berg is describing?

we are certainly our bodies but the seat of consciousness seems to be the brain. Sorry if that offends you.

So why do neurons and neural nets need to produce 'models of environment and self' when we ourselves originally find ourselves, recognize ourselves, as existing holistically within a complex environment that we must gradually learn to navigate through innumerable contingencies we encounter, and in and by that process recognize that our experience is tacitly 'self-experiential' even in prereflective consciousness. It seems that you and your sources avoid, or fail to comprehend, these experientially discovered grounds of existential awareness, feeling, consciousness, and thought, and assume that our neurons experience reflective, higher-order thought out of which they construct models of 'what-is'. My next question is 'how' do neurons do this.

“We ourselves” are models generated by our brains and bodies to allow us to move adaptively through the world. You are one to continually redirect our attention to evolution and the natural world for good reason. Minds are adaptive. Organisms have them for a reason.

You answer your question yourself.

organisms aren’t conscious, we are conscious.

 

[Constance]

Sorry, @Farlig, I evidently posted my intended response before I'd written it. I'll try again.

 

[Constance]

we are certainly our bodies but the seat of consciousness seems to be the brain. Sorry if that offends you.

Why would your viewpoint 'offend' me now? I've recognized, understood, and responded to it for three years now and continue to be unable to adopt it.

“We ourselves” are models generated by our brains and bodies to allow us to move adaptively through the world. You are one to continually redirect our attention to evolution and the natural world for good reason. Minds are adaptive. Organisms have them for a reason.
You answer your question yourself.
organisms aren’t conscious, we are conscious.

My question is how do our earliest provisional 'models' of self and world change as a result of our lived experiences in the world? Indeed, if we accept that organisms, including ourselves, adapt -- and must adapt -- to changing circumstances and situations we encounter in the world, how can our mental and behavioral adaptations be accounted for if not as the results of that which we directly experience and learn from? From an evolutionary perspective, it's obvious that consciousness evolves in and with the evolution of species. Otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

 

[Constance]

Hi Constance. Glad you were able to read it. I haven't sent the transcript anywhere, but please feel free to send it if you like. I've attached a slightly revised version with a correction: the program on which this episode appeared has had fifteen seasons, not five. I've also added an additional designator - producer - in the transcript so that it's a little easier to tell who is speaking.

Hi Farlig. I think it would be much better if you were to forward the video and your transcript to Dr. Jim Tucker, the current Director of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia. He worked with Dr. Stevenson for many years and coauthored some papers with him, and is himself the author of papers and books continuing the reincarnation studies. You will find many of these papers linked on the excellent page you linked summarizing Stevenson and others' research in this field over the last 40-50 years, at

Dr. Ian Stevenson's Reincarnation Research

See especially the section headed:

11. Articles on Reincarnation by Researchers of the Division of Perceptual Studies

All articles below are in PDF format. To download, right-click on the link and select "Save As". Related articles can be downloaded at the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia.

I am certain that Dr. Tucker will attend closely to the video and transcript you have provided and you will almost certainly hear from him.

I've also added a few words at the beginning to briefly explain why I don't find the hoax scenario compelling. Professionals whose names are given during the show, and who have been concerned with the child's development saw that the child was speaking English regularly but hardly any Arabic, and that his Arabic was deficient according to the child's age. So, if the child was a genius at picking up English, why didn't he also pick up Arabic? And that question is asked several times in the video and it is in the transcript. The neighbor Waj'di, who speaks English with the boy, says that the child was speaking English with him the first time he came over. Waj'di did not teach him. Waj'di also said that he has tried to teach his own children English, but they are not anywhere near this child's capability. Finally, there is no compelling reason for this program originating in Tel Aviv by secular Israeli Jews to push for a Druze case of reincarnation, especially if there was no real evidence behind it. The Druze themselves, as a small community in Israel, have no impetus to hoax evidence, because if a Druze family hoaxes something, the entire community will bear the stigma of being discovered as hoaxers, if that's what they did.

Exactly. Stevenson et al's research has been so rigorous that it is impossible to suspect 'hoaxes' perpetrated by the families of children remembering past lives (both the current birth family and the family of the individual whose memories are somehow retained by the affected child). I've read a great deal of Stephenson's, Haraldsson's, and Tucker's research, but by no means all of it. One or two of Stevenson's book-length works go to several thousand pages in length. Fortunately this webpage you've linked identifies and links to pdfs of numerous papers I've never before run across in my internet searches. Much appreciated.

So, I think there is evidence of some very unusual situation with the child.
That said, I understand the idea and draw of reincarnation, and I've looked at Ian Stevenson's work, here, for example. But I don't think the data can prove that. Reincarnation says incorporeal sentient entites can incarnate in a human being. Reincarnation says that the incorporeal sentient entites previously lived as mortal humans. I would simply ask, what if there is a class of incorporeal entities that are not mortal humans, but who have lived alongside humans for millenia, and who can nevertheless influence human beings to the very depth of a human's consciousness, as seems to occur in all manner of paranormal phenomena? There is also cultural testimony of such entities as much as for reincarnation. So, I don't think reincarnation is a slam dunk by any means.

I'm not aware of the "cultural testimony" of "incorporeal sentient entities [that] can incarnate in a human being" that you refer to. Can you provide a link or two to such testimony? My own view of the reincarnation research (and of research into NDEs, mediumship, past-life regressions, spontaneus OBEs, and other paranormal phenomena) is that these all point to levels and aptitudes of consciousness to leave at least continuing traces of personally significant individual experiences in what is often referred to as 'the Akashic Records'. So that some of that which has been experienced, felt, and thought intensely in one lifetime remains accessible (who knows how?) to later living consciousnesses. If one wants a 'mechanism' that might explain all this, I suggest that quantum entanglement includes not only interactions of physical particles and fields but of that which humans (and perhaps some other species) have felt and thought and which remains part of the structure of lived reality.

ETA: Here is a page concerning the U of V's Division of Perceptual Studies, and that's Jim Tucker at the top of the page. Farther down the page there a "Contact" button to take you to the address to which to email your report to him.

Division of Perceptual Studies | University of Virginia School of Medicine

@smcder will be pleased to see Edward Kelly among the researchers there. He has provided us, a few years ago in this thread, with a summary of the contents of Kelly and Kelly, eds., major book Irreducible Mind: Psychology for the Twenty-First Century, which I'll try to link in a next post. I think that you will find this summary and the book itself most interesting, @Farlig.

Here is a link to portions of Irreducible Mind at Google Books:

Irreducible Mind

 

[Soupie]

Why would your viewpoint 'offend' me now? I've recognized, understood, and responded to it for three years now and continue to be unable to adopt it.



My question is how do our earliest provisional 'models' of self and world change as a result of our lived experiences in the world? Indeed, if we accept that organisms, including ourselves, adapt -- and must adapt -- to changing circumstances and situations we encounter in the world, how can our mental and behavioral adaptations be accounted for if not as the results of that which we directly experience and learn from? From an evolutionary perspective, it's obvious that consciousness evolves in and with the evolution of species. Otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

“...how can our mental and behavioral adaptations be accounted for if not as the results of that which we directly experience and learn from?”

The stages of mind cited above, I think, outlines the different ways in which organisms learn and adapt, including the ways you mention.