Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 3

[smcder]

"I made an unexpected discovery once my intellectual and emotional resistances to studying the Hebrew Bible began moderating. Sustained and intense involvement with the text resulted in an altered state of consciousness.

...

Identification with what I was reading increased, and I either understood, or could now defer outright rejection of, elements of the Hebrew Bible that I previously found impenetrable."

Rick Strassman - DMT and the Soul of Prophecy

 

[Soupie]

TM and pure consciousness (awareness sans content).

Text from the presentation:

http://www.drfredtravis.com/talking points Med and SOC.htm

@smcder I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on TM. The concept of "pure" consciousness refuses to make sense to me.

 

[Pharoah]

My understanding of natural selection is that as various traits arise within individuals of a species, they may or may not confer an advantage. If a trait does confer an advantage, individuals with the trait will generally be more successful at producing offspring. In this way, the trait will be selected and spread through the species. Those individuals with the trait could be considered more adapted to their environment. This doesnt mean however the individuals without the trait will die out.

As the environments in which organisms live and evolve are constantly changing, so too will be the traits and individuals which are most adapted to the environment.

Imo it is accurate to say that organisms become adapted to their environments, but both the environment and organisms are in constant flux, so the advantage of a trait is always temporary.

As noted, Im not convinced random mutations and ns are the main mechanism driving the evolution of species. Im looking to epigenetics as potentially playing a bigger role than given in the current paradigm.


Ive come to think of these as different levels of description.

For example, we could theoretically describe the motion of the planets with quantum mechanics, but that would enormously, needlessly complex to do so, and classical physics works just fine.

We wouldnt say that a classical physics explanation nullifies a quantum explanation though.

In a way, the same could be said for quantum mechanics and free will; we could describe the movement of our arm using either level of description.

All these levels or models of description might capture some of the truth of the processes one is seeking to explain, but none of the seem to capture the whole truth.

On evolution... if there is a dramatic environmental change it leads to a change in the evolutionary gradient potential. Conversely, if the environment is very stable then evolutionary adaptations will be muted with a low evolutionary gradient potential.
However, in a very stable environment, if a single mutation has a dramatic effect, say for example, making all the legs of an animal half the size of its predecessors (a dwarf gene say) thus enabling it to hide underground or in undergrowth from a predator, then once again the evolutionary gradient potential would be drastically altered leading to sudden evolutionary adaptations that would advantage further changes to that animal with short legs (e.g. claws suited to burrowing, changed of leg musculature, changes to hair etc).

Furthermore, if there were a mental change in a animal that meant it developed novel realisations about its fellow creatures (perhaps through some incremental changes in cognitive functions), it might then accommodate those realisations through novel vocalisations. If those vocalisations conferred advantages in social hierarchy, hunting and mating, this mental state would generated a dramatic evolutionary gradient potential feeding rapid physiological adaptation—as further improved enunciation is predicated on further adaptations of musculature in the lips and tongue, for example. HCT explains that the rapid expansion in brain size about 3 million years ago was a response to a mental change (the emergence of construct #4). It caused the rapid evolution of specialised cognitive mechanisms and mouth musculature to enhance language capabilities. i.e. the mental capacity came first and the potential benefit it conferred then changed the evolutionary gradient potential (an adaptive evolutionary paradigm shift). This then caused the sudden and rapid physiological adaptations (over a few tens of thousands of years) that were better able to confer the advantages stimulated by that mental state. The mental state then became more refined and sophisticated and continues to evolve but the gradient is not nearly so steep.

 

[Pharoah]

what caused the mental change? - (maybe I can back my way through HCT)

We can agree that adaptation is ongoing... the environment changes and this leads to adaptations. Outrunning and outsmarting is important both with regard the prey and in social contexts—for feeding and mating opportunities. So there is an evolutionary gradient potential for physical and cognitive/intellect enhancements. However, the brain uses up a lot of energy—very expensive organ to feed—plus is a problem for the birth canal. Inevitably, there are conflicting forces that create a balance, but there is still flux; to-ing and fro-ing reflecting changes in environment etc.
Perhaps, as has been suggested, deforestation created enough of a change to tip the balance in favour of cognitive advances (climate change, migrations, are other possibilities etc). However, even if not some environmental change, the evolutionary gradient, however slight, is always leading to greater complexity. e.g. perhaps nature created a brain that uses less energy, or enhances social capabilities that allow for pre-cerebral maturation birthing... there are plenty of examples where survival pressures have led to refinements of economy.
From the humble fly to the complex dog and ape, cognitive evolution has generally conferred advantage one way or other. So the gradient inevitably led to a cognitive enhancement that allowed a new mental realisation capability to emerge (by accident). The mental change then fuelled a sudden explosive change in brain size, cognitive development (e.g. Wernicke's Broca's areas), physical changes (musculature of lips and tongue), social/cultural enhancements etc. The brain accelerated its mass to take advantage, got a bit too big (Neanderthal) and then refined and came to its current equilibrium.

So, the mental development was an accidental consequence of the general process of adaptation. But when it happen, it drastically changed the evolutionary gradient potential leading to revolutionary adaptive consequences.

In fact, each emergent phase in the HCT hierarchy is met by sudden revolutionary physical consequences. This is then followed by incidental, and more tempered, evolving complexity (which is where we currently reside in construct #4).
The historic facts provide the best evidential support for HCT.

 

[smcder]

TM and pure consciousness (awareness sans content).

Text from the presentation:

http://www.drfredtravis.com/talking points Med and SOC.htm

@smcder I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on TM. The concept of "pure" consciousness refuses to make sense to me.

Ill try to look at the link later ... but Ive never tried TM - the article we discussed earlier is the best explanation or exercise I've seen on this ... so Im not sure what to tell you, that experience may not be accessible for you.

 

[smcder]

We can agree that adaptation is ongoing... the environment changes and this leads to adaptations. Outrunning and outsmarting is important both with regard the prey and in social contexts—for feeding and mating opportunities. So there is an evolutionary gradient potential for physical and cognitive/intellect enhancements. However, the brain uses up a lot of energy—very expensive organ to feed—plus is a problem for the birth canal. Inevitably, there are conflicting forces that create a balance, but there is still flux; to-ing and fro-ing reflecting changes in environment etc.
Perhaps, as has been suggested, deforestation created enough of a change to tip the balance in favour of cognitive advances (climate change, migrations, are other possibilities etc). However, even if not some environmental change, the evolutionary gradient, however slight, is always leading to greater complexity. e.g. perhaps nature created a brain that uses less energy, or enhances social capabilities that allow for pre-cerebral maturation birthing... there are plenty of examples where survival pressures have led to refinements of economy.
From the humble fly to the complex dog and ape, cognitive evolution has generally conferred advantage one way or other. So the gradient inevitably led to a cognitive enhancement that allowed a new mental realisation capability to emerge (by accident). The mental change then fuelled a sudden explosive change in brain size, cognitive development (e.g. Wernicke's Broca's areas), physical changes (musculature of lips and tongue), social/cultural enhancements etc. The brain accelerated its mass to take advantage, got a bit too big (Neanderthal) and then refined and came to its current equilibrium.

So, the mental development was an accidental consequence of the general process of adaptation. But when it happen, it drastically changed the evolutionary gradient potential leading to revolutionary adaptive consequences.

In fact, each emergent phase in the HCT hierarchy is met by sudden revolutionary physical consequences. This is then followed by incidental, and more tempered, evolving complexity (which is where we currently reside in construct #4).
The historic facts provide the best evidential support for HCT.

So it could go back at any time too, correct? There is not an arrow?

I believe you referred to this in another post. Construct 5 being something at risk, maybe

my understanding of all of this. the mainstream science and HCT especially is not very deep, but Im not seeing how HCT is different from evolutionary theory

 

[Pharoah]

So it could go back at any time too, correct? There is not an arrow?

I believe you referred to this in another post. Construct 5 being something at risk, maybe

my understanding of all of this. the mainstream science and HCT especially is not very deep, but Im not seeing how HCT is different from evolutionary theory

There is an arrow
Not deep? What depth u looking for?
Evolutionary theory... There is evolution. Yes. But hct is like an onion and explains why there are transcendent layers linking to cs

 

[smcder]

There is an arrow
Not deep? What depth u looking for?
Evolutionary theory... There is evolution. Yes. But hct is like an onion and explains why there are transcendent layers linking to cs

Oh no, not the onion metaphor! ;-) But props for its being a transcendent onion.

Not deep? What depth u looking for?

... sorry, typo - !

Take the "." from after the "this" below:

my understanding of all of this. the mainstream science and HCT especially is not very deep, but Im not seeing how HCT is different from evolutionary theory

it should have read:

my understanding of all of this, the mainstream science and HCT especially, (my understanding) is not very deep but I'm not seeing how HCT is different from evolutionary theory

OK, so there is an arrow (I suspected there was an arrow) - this is teleology then? I understand some biologists do see an arrow, a direction in evolution (Nagel article - where nagel went wrong, posted above) - is there purpose, meaning? what points the arrow, what pulls back the bow and lets fly?

transcendent

• "surmounting, rising above"
• "of or relating to a spiritual or nonphysical realm."
• ?

I may be getting somewhere here!

 

[smcder]

TM and pure consciousness (awareness sans content).

Text from the presentation:

@smcder I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on TM. The concept of "pure" consciousness refuses to make sense to me.

Did you ask it politely?

here's your problem: concept it's an experience, the result of an exercise is an experience (in this case) - I guess I could have said all that earlier, huh?

So when I did the exercise in the article a while back, what I experienced fit the author's description ... now, does that make it so? I will go so far as to say that if I (and lots of people in history like St John of the Cross) have an experience of pure consciousness

awareness sans content

(IFF that's exactly the language the author used?)

then I (and lots of people in history) have had an experience of pure consciousness and who art thou to say otherwise?


In light of what I've been reading in Strassman, the interesting thing is that above when I talked about everything being true without reduction it was a little like this, I'm not sure it's an ACS (as I'm not sure what an ACS is) but it's something, not sure it's a "being in", but maybe - it's another way of thinking, and there is a "return" where you come back and say:

"I'm not sure I can understand that (everything being true or awareness sans content) now."

That exercise gave me some ideas about how to get control over entering that state. So I think you maybe didn't get in this state.

 

[smcder]

The Reality of Quantum Weirdness - "Is there a fixed reality apart from our various observations of it? Or is reality nothing more than a kaleidoscope of infinite possibilities?" - experimental research supports the latter (...Rashomon effect) - http://t.co/rvSBKD7I1c (NYT Sunday Review)
Another good read in these matters is: Infinity is a Beautiful Concept - And It's ruining Physics - http://t.co/DoLTzUpQQN (Discover Magazine)
Max Planck: "We have no right to assume that any... physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."
The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory by Max Planck - http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33663
On the Quantum Theory of Line-Spectra, Part 1 and 2 by Niels Bohr - http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47167
[Image: Niels Bohr and Max Planck - 1930]
... hope the links work!

 

[Soupie]

@smcder

Yes, need to experience it. No, i certainly didnt experience doing the Dreikre exercises. Im wondering if TM is a good path.

I certainly believe the experience is real, but question the mystical explanations for it.

Turiya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Verse VII of the Mandukya Upanishad describes Turiya:

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.[web 5]​

Here is a materialist, reductive take on pure conscious events (PCEs).

http://www.usi.edu/libarts/phil/gennaro/papers/PureConsciousEvents.pdf

You mentioned a pre-articulated theory re levels of explanation. Would love to read it whenever.

 

[Soupie]

@smcder Quantum weirdness prevented the links from working.

 

[smcder]

@smcder

Yes, need to experience it. No, i certainly didnt experience doing the Dreikre exercises. Im wondering if TM is a good path.

I certainly believe the experience is real, but question the mystical explanations for it.

Turiya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Verse VII of the Mandukya Upanishad describes Turiya:

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.[web 5]​

Here is a materialist, reductive take on pure conscious events (PCEs).

http://www.usi.edu/libarts/phil/gennaro/papers/PureConsciousEvents.pdf

You mentioned a pre-articulated theory re levels of explanation. Would love to read it whenever.

I certainly believe the experience is real, but question the mystical explanations for it.

*sigh* always you question, Grasshopper



What is the sound of one knee jerking?




Quote on ... quote off ... shhhhhhhhh

Here is a materialist, reductive take on pure conscious events (PCEs).

No why would I want to read a religious tract?

... (putting finger tips to temples) ... let me guess, pretty close to the first part of the article "so-called" is used with pure conscious events in "" ... am I right? or maybe it's just "conscious" in quotes, with pure and events being allowed phenomena ...

What I think you've not understood is that I was raised a materialist ... from the cradle, so I have a fairly firm grasp of it, although it does seem to be wearing off.

 

[smcder]

@smcder Quantum weirdness prevented the links from working.

dang ... I thought it would ... ok, it's on my FB feed under Project Gutenberg ... if you are on FB you can look up Gutenberg

 

[smcder]

Oh and I bet there is a ton of acronyms in that article .... ?

Yes, need to experience it. No, i certainly didnt experience doing the Dreikre exercises. Im wondering if TM is a good path.

There's just but one path, you've got to stay on it. What you are doing now (breathing) is fine. It will get you there.

You have to let all that go, temporarily - experience it and then come back and conceptualize all you want. If you still want to.

Go on ... everybody's doing it ... first enlightenment is free.

 

[smcder]

@smcder

Yes, need to experience it. No, i certainly didnt experience doing the Dreikre exercises. Im wondering if TM is a good path.

I certainly believe the experience is real, but question the mystical explanations for it.

Turiya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Verse VII of the Mandukya Upanishad describes Turiya:

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.[web 5]​

Here is a materialist, reductive take on pure conscious events (PCEs).

http://www.usi.edu/libarts/phil/gennaro/papers/PureConsciousEvents.pdf

You mentioned a pre-articulated theory re levels of explanation. Would love to read it whenever.

SIX times the author uses "so called" ... ! and lots of things in ""s too. I feel a Sunday sermon coming on ...
It definitely is a take ... tell me what you took from the take?

I certainly believe the experience is real, but question the mystical explanations for it.

The experience is the explanation. The last thing a mystic probably thinks is that he/she is is a mystic, they don't give certificates in it and I'm guessing hardly ever thinks about providing a so-called "mystical explanation" for what simply is. It's the most ordinary thing in the world, really mundane stuff ... so in that frame of mind if you read something like the above materialist, reductive take by Gennaro, then you think , after all the cutting away and defining of discourse and what will and won't be allowed to be talked about and what the author's purposes are and how they can be distinguished from others in the field (always to the superiority of the author) in order to serve the various purposes of clarity, you think that here is a truly mystical and paradoxical piece of writing - in fact, if I hadn't a good, stern upbringing in materialism I wouldn't be able to keep from floating away upon imbibing such heady stuff!

That's why I like to see equations - friend to mystic and rationalist alike. And if you don't read the equations (for example in the ANN article you posted) you will miss something.

Mystical writing is generally caveat-laden about how it can't be conveyed in words only to go on for volumes about it ... now to be fair I think some of this writing (The Cloud of Unknowing I am most familiar with) serves lots of other purposes, is esoteric in the sense I posted above.

"Sham spirituality flourished in the mediaeval cloister, and offered a constant opportunity of error to those young enthusiasts who were not yet aware that the true freedom of eternity “cometh not with observation.” Affectations of sanctity, p. 22 pretense to rare mystical experiences, were a favourite means of advertisement. Psychic phenomena, too, seem to have been common: ecstasies, visions, voices, the scent of strange perfumes, the hearing of sweet sounds. For these supposed indications of Divine favour, the author of the Cloud has no more respect than the modern psychologist: and here, of course, he is in agreement with all the greatest writers on mysticism, who are unanimous in their dislike and distrust of all visionary and auditive experience. Such things, he considers, are most often hallucination: and, where they are not, should be regarded as the accidents rather than the substance of the contemplative life—the harsh rind of sense, which covers the sweet nut of “pure ghostliness.” Were we truly spiritual, we should not need them; for our communion with Reality would then be the direct and ineffable intercourse of like with like."

Very ordinary stuff.

 

[Pharoah]

Oh no, not the onion metaphor! ;-) But props for its being a transcendent onion.

Not deep? What depth u looking for?

... sorry, typo - !

Take the "." from after the "this" below:

my understanding of all of this. the mainstream science and HCT especially is not very deep, but Im not seeing how HCT is different from evolutionary theory

it should have read:

my understanding of all of this, the mainstream science and HCT especially, (my understanding) is not very deep but I'm not seeing how HCT is different from evolutionary theory

OK, so there is an arrow (I suspected there was an arrow) - this is teleology then? I understand some biologists do see an arrow, a direction in evolution (Nagel article - where nagel went wrong, posted above) - is there purpose, meaning? what points the arrow, what pulls back the bow and lets fly?

transcendent

• "surmounting, rising above"
• "of or relating to a spiritual or nonphysical realm."
• ?

I may be getting somewhere here!

What do you mean by "I may be getting somewhere here!" What have you figured out?
What if anything do you want me to expand on?

 

[smcder]

What do you mean by "I may be getting somewhere here!" What have you figured out?
What if anything do you want me to expand on?

I'm not sure I remember now, it seems like I felt I was getting somewhere with the questions - I'm trying to distinguish HCT from mainstream evolutionary theory, if there is an arrow, then there is teleology (right?) and there is no teleology in mainstream ET ... (but see the article on Where Thomas Nagel Went Wrong for biologists who do believe in arrows) .. you have four stages in the evolution or process of complex life development ... with a fifth (maybe to come) and with something driving things forward. <---- All of that is right?

So my questions are all right there in the text, here they are again in bold ...

1. OK, so there is an arrow (I suspected there was an arrow) - this is teleology then?

2. I understand some biologists do see an arrow, a direction in evolution (Nagel article - where nagel went wrong, posted above) - is there purpose, meaning?

3. what points the arrow, what pulls back the bow and lets fly?
4. (how are you using the word) transcendent

• "surmounting, rising above"
• "of or relating to a spiritual or nonphysical realm."
• ?

 

[Soupie]

@smcder

What I took from it was that the author's view of PCEs is very similar to mine. (Probably no coincidence that I too have an affinity for both representationalism and HOT theories of consciousness.)

Referring to these experiences as "pure consciousness" rightly deserves scare quotes because I don't think there is any consensus on what consciousness is, and therefore what pure consciousness might be.

Furthermore, referring to these experiences as "contentless" is also tricky because its hard to see how one can recall the experience afterward—ineffable as it may have been—if it completely lacked mental content. I agree with the author's suggestion that while these experiences may not be filled with typical contents—like colors, shapes, smells, and sounds—they nevertheless do seem to have content, or a "what it's like."

As far as appealing to brain states as a reductive explanation of these mental states, again my sympathies tend to lie with the author. I feel that we are beings of energy/matter and our streams of consciousness are essentially streams of embodied information.

 

[Constance]