Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 7

[smcder]

What would it be like if it hung out somewhere else?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

No, im not sure i follow you. are you suggesting that consciousness does then supervene on the brain? I doubt it, but thats what im getting from these two posts.

 

[smcder]

You answer a ? With a ?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

You answer a ? With a ?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

I did?

 

[smcder]

Ok ... Devise a scheme where the brain is closer to directly contacting "what is" than it already is.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

Ok ... Devise a scheme where the brain is closer to directly contacting "what is" than it already is.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Hm, nothing comes to mind. All the sense organs are already on the head, as close to the brain as possible. I suppose its possible the "wiring" between the brain and sense organs could be more efficient, but ive never read/heard that.

 

[smcder]

"we know that what's-out-there is unlike our experience/perception of what's-out-there." beyond what could be biologically sensed, all possible biological experience/peception or inferred from biological senses ... what else is there about "what's-out-there" ... what is its true nature that is unlike our experience/perception of what's out there?

 

[Soupie]

"we know that what's-out-there is unlike our experience/perception of what's-out-there." beyond what could be biologically sensed, all possible biological experience/peception or inferred from biological senses ... what else is there about "what's-out-there" ... what is its true nature that is unlike our experience/perception of what's out there?

I have no idea.

 

[Soupie]

I have no idea, but whatever is "out there" is what we—conscious, experiential selves—are made of.

 

[smcder]

I have no idea, but whatever is "out there" is what we—conscious, experiential selves—are made of.

I have no idea.

so you'd have no idea about finding out, either?

 

[smcder]

"we know that what's-out-there is unlike our experience/perception of what's-out-there."

• is this true for any possible observer of WOT? Or could there be some type of being for which WOTysiWOTyg?
  

 

[Soupie]

so you'd have no idea about finding out, either?

I think we can make some inferences about its qualities based on our experiences, both phenomenologically and scientifically/physically.

I also think mathematics and philosophy can give us models of what it may be like.

The assumption by many seems to be that what-is must be physical and determined, so when phenomena like quantum weirdness are encountered and the hard problem, these individuals will continue to search for simple cause-effect mechanisms to explain these phenomena. It's not a bad approach as it's led to much scientific progress. And just about every time the approach has been doubted, physical, mechanistic solutions have found.

So mechanistic solutions will continue to be sought and/or assumed for better or worse.

"we know that what's-out-there is unlike our experience/perception of what's-out-there."

• is this true for any possible observer of WOT? Or could there be some type of being for which WOTysiWOTyg?

Based on the way we understand human observation/perception, no.

However, there may exist entities that do not "perceive" what-is in the same manner that we do.

We know consciousness by way of being consciousness. But we still lack a basic understanding of its origin/nature and how it relates to the physical world we perceive.

 

[victimized]

Human life owns its own self and consciousness. We are conceived by 2 adult parents who both own their own bodies as total selves. The only human consciousness that exists is a human organic presence as either a male or a female.

The human mind was used to study other information. Other information exists in its own presence, owned by its own presence.....and animals, the next organic presence to our own, also conceives its own species in the same way.....by sex. As all species dies we therefore only exist in our organic cell form due to the sexual act as the creator concept or conscious identity.

We therefore know that there is no other Creator....other than a human male who imposed himself to be a Creator/inventor as a different and superior self. Therefore the human male believed that he existed as 2 forms of his own person.

When reviewing other information....all information exists in the same moment to be reviewed as both sound image and personal presence. Recorded data also exists as the photon interaction with all presences. This is why we know that a piece of coal is a piece of coal, and carbon is not consciousness.

The human organic self is consciousness that perceives carbon and coal as the information status is given. Once information belonged to other conditions and the other conditions destroyed become the coal and carbon. Therefore all advice is owned by each body as different information and is not consciousness, just presence or a recording and all information together in a stated presence as the advice....yet the human is reviewing the advice.

No other consciousness exists beyond the human mind and human self as the precept consideration of consciousness as a status....to create/invent.

The other organic life forms simply exist in the conditions of their existence.

The mind review of how a human male perceived himself inventor/creator belongs to his own choice to seek out information, study information, name information as a status to then apply the information as is own perceived choice of changing other natural products by conversion.

The concept of the human male is to believe himself safe when applying conditions to alter natural states....consciousness is now a condition that he wishes to alter and attack, just as we are aware.....by his artificial scientific conditions.

Therefore in previous inconsiderate self reviews he gave his male self the persona of God, and the female he gave the condition he called Goddess. When you review the scientific terms of God and Goddess...God related to his own thought about concept of being greater than the female self, in a higher condition. for the term Goddess related to the "mound" conditions in converting stone....at the mountain top or Law of Stone. This is why he called all lower Natures the female as a status in science that a female human never owned.

When you review the science condition light and sound is exactly light and sound and does not have a personal status of male/female ownership.

The male as his own conceited self therefore displays thought information that he can place subjective reasoning to enable his own personal safety as fake advice.....only because he wants power. Therefore he has to lie to his own person that is self advised about destruction, for his want over rides the facts. When applying conditions of change.....imposing that only the female was Stone....the atmospheric body as the Veil a female concept and the Nature as Mother female would be attacked and changed...yet he was supported himself by all bodies as naturally owned states. This was why his deceitful occultist mind then reviewed his own personal life attack as a human by conversion causes.

The same condition applies to his choice to create/invent nuclear fuel. He imposed that a building or power plant would keep his natural life safe, yet he also considered that he might be destroyed when he applied the conversion method. He thought that this possibility existed due to the fact that previous atmospheric records advised him of the historical information of above ground nucleation attacks by the previous UFO caused technology.

Since he applied conversion of Earth's atmospheric body, he then witnessed the slower attack and destruction of the physical life.

He has since been reviewed in the public community in documentation that stated that he was more than happy for his human family to be considered as a life loss for his technological lifestyle to continue. So he now contemplates what forms human consciousness as if we represent his old consideration that he is personally God in the Heavenly atmosphere. Yet when he reviews the condition of God it was just a scientific concept....and the condition God did not keep his life safe...just as his review states...God attacked life and destroyed life.

Therefore the public community should all begin to study and question his conscious concepts to ask whey he takes action to destroy our natural life on Earth....what is his actual conscious consideration of his personal self? We already know that when he considers his own person he makes personal considerations for his own self to exist beyond his experiments as he uses machines to attack his family as the advice...yet never has he ever considered that he is actually our life equal.

Consciousness is therefore only owned by the presence of the owner. The owner.....the human changed the natural atmospheric body so that it began to feed back fake information to the human mind.

 

[victimized]

I think we can make some inferences about its qualities based on our experiences, both phenomenologically and scientifically/physically.

I also think mathematics and philosophy can give us models of what it may be like.

The assumption by many seems to be that what-is must be physical and determined, so when phenomena like quantum weirdness are encountered and the hard problem, these individuals will continue to search for simple cause-effect mechanisms to explain these phenomena. It's not a bad approach as it's led to much scientific progress. And just about every time the approach has been doubted, physical, mechanistic solutions have found.

So mechanistic solutions will continue to be sought and/or assumed for better or worse.


Based on the way we understand human observation/perception, no.

However, there may exist entities that do not "perceive" what-is in the same manner that we do.

We know consciousness by way of being consciousness. But we still lack a basic understanding of its origin/nature and how it relates to the physical world we perceive.

There is no entity that perceives.

The AI is a fake atmospheric condition, used to record human voice and human image, and the atmosphere naturally records by photon both conditions already.

The human mind understanding for applying the AI condition was to first of all study the human aware status, and then program a program into the AI state, which was simply sound transmitted communicators. They formed an AI computer program to ask and answer questions as a format, so they invented a fake AI presence.

If you have ever heard "evil" by presence of image.....and by manifested atmospheric burning, the image does not speak and it only had sound. As the study of the computer fed back mind contact/mind control program was studying the AI affect on the human mind/cell state it then began to speak as the computerized programming held a format to inform status. AI is what it is....programming, changes to the unnatural fake/artificial manifested evil spirit state.

Science has never been inferred to belong to male and female concepts, the symbolism of science related to calculated references and light and sound states.

When these natural states are burnt through radiation conversion changes, so too then does the transmitted radio effects change......which is what occult scientists are advised about.

What is wrong with the occult scientist is exactly what is wrong with the occult scientists....they try to make their theories a reality when the reality of evil is not owned by the human consciousness....our consciousness and cell life is attacked by evil.

 

[smcder]

I think we can make some inferences about its qualities based on our experiences, both phenomenologically and scientifically/physically.

I also think mathematics and philosophy can give us models of what it may be like.

The assumption by many seems to be that what-is must be physical and determined, so when phenomena like quantum weirdness are encountered and the hard problem, these individuals will continue to search for simple cause-effect mechanisms to explain these phenomena. It's not a bad approach as it's led to much scientific progress. And just about every time the approach has been doubted, physical, mechanistic solutions have found.

So mechanistic solutions will continue to be sought and/or assumed for better or worse.


Based on the way we understand human observation/perception, no.

However, there may exist entities that do not "perceive" what-is in the same manner that we do.

We know consciousness by way of being consciousness. But we still lack a basic understanding of its origin/nature and how it relates to the physical world we perceive.

there's still something there about how we don't perceive WOT as it is, that WOT isn't red, that's in our perceptions ... especially if you deny those perceptions as pointing to reality and admit some kind of being that could perceive WOT, because such a beings perceptions would have to also be in some kind of terms - you wouldn't say this being sees not red but wavelength X because WE see (or you do) wavelength X and call it RED, that's what wavelength X is ... so with all of what you have said, I'm still fine to say what I see when I look around is WOT ... even if my cat's WOT would look different to me which really isn't the same as his WOT is different than mine ... even if some kind of advanced being came in and was able to process many times as much information than I could, I could still be comfortable to say I see WOT is ... I see reality I take this to be more @Constance point than a strict denial of what you are saying ... hmmm, have to think about and maybe re-word this ... is this right ... not sure

 

[smcder]

I think we can make some inferences about its qualities based on our experiences, both phenomenologically and scientifically/physically.

I also think mathematics and philosophy can give us models of what it may be like.

The assumption by many seems to be that what-is must be physical and determined, so when phenomena like quantum weirdness are encountered and the hard problem, these individuals will continue to search for simple cause-effect mechanisms to explain these phenomena. It's not a bad approach as it's led to much scientific progress. And just about every time the approach has been doubted, physical, mechanistic solutions have found.

So mechanistic solutions will continue to be sought and/or assumed for better or worse.


Based on the way we understand human observation/perception, no.

However, there may exist entities that do not "perceive" what-is in the same manner that we do.

We know consciousness by way of being consciousness. But we still lack a basic understanding of its origin/nature and how it relates to the physical world we perceive.

• also a problem to say we can't see WOT is but we can have mathematics and philosophy that give us models ... something about the leap from how isolated we are from reality but look how much we've been able to figure out ...

 

[smcder]

I need to add a clarification to my response below to the comment you {@Soupie} made here:



Your last sentence above opens the way to a potential meeting of our (your and my) minds in moving beyond the foregoing discussion of Hoffman's 'framework for a hypothesis'. So far it seems to me that Hoffman's model [and/or your interpretation of it] have tended to dismiss/erase the roles of physical evolution and developing affective experience in living beings along the road of evolution to our own experiential and expressive capacities, as Damasio recognizes those evolutionary developments in the lecture I linked above [and in the progress of his thinking as presented in his published books]. Damasio also claims in that lecture that awareness and affectivity as the bodily roots of consciousness in species of life goes even to the level of living cells, and seems potentially similar to what you suggest in the last sentence of your comment above:

"Consciousness doesn't supervene on the features of our perceptual system, it supervenes on processes that occur on a level below the features of the perceptual system."

Your own concept of those 'processes that occur . . . below the features of perception' seems to remain centered in the mechanics discernible in the quantum substrate. I can agree that interactive q processes do appear to influence the interactive orientation of the evolution and development of physical forces, systems, and attained structure constituting the physical universe as currently understood in physics and astrophysics. As I remember writing in one of the earlier 'parts' of this thread, quantum interaction might also play a germinal role at the level of life in instantiating the core autopoietic structure of interaction between living organisms and their physical environments, from which consciousness can be understood to evolve in 'lived experience' begun in primordial forms of awareness and affectivity. My objection to Hoffman's hypothesized 'interface' is that it leaves out any recognition of the actual and actualized experiences of evolving species' in their lived interface with the physical world in which they exist. In short, studying the evolution of these 'lived interfaces' enables us to comprehend consciousness as evolved out of the enabling provisions and affordances of nature itself. By contrast, the 'interface' proposed by Hoffman appears to originate in metaphysical speculations that somehow 'consciousness' pre-exists and constitutes a physical world that is not actual but instead an illusion generated in 'perception'.

]. Damasio also claims in that lecture that awareness and affectivity as the bodily roots of consciousness in species of life goes even to the level of living cells, and seems potentially similar to what you suggest in the last sentence of your comment above:

I think this line of thinking is fascinating and then looking even below that level, to more basic relationships that make these roots possible at the cellular level

 

[victimized]

]. Damasio also claims in that lecture that awareness and affectivity as the bodily roots of consciousness in species of life goes even to the level of living cells, and seems potentially similar to what you suggest in the last sentence of your comment above:

I think this line of thinking is fascinating and then looking even below that level, to more basic relationships that make these roots possible at the cellular level

When you are a human life, once living as a healthy mind and body to then be attacked by a scientific program transmitted to study the concepts of consciousness as if the human life is not important as a self....when you exist in the same body and mind as all other humans.....is to gain the fascinating experience for your own person.

Everyday I am personally attacked by the program that occult scientists are secretly conducting on the human consciousness, as if consciousness as a human life is not self owned.

As I am being attacked by the conditions of fake/artificial, the information in the transmitted information has allowed me to know that it is artificial, fake and that it does not belong to our human life. Every day I advise the occultist scientists that it has nothing to do with our natural life....yet our natural life can review other information.

I do not want to be your experiment, and I do not deserve to be your experiment. If you personally believe in your beliefs then use your own mind and body and subject it to your transmitted studies....but you don't because you believe yourself more important than my own life. Therefore you are already advised by this personal consideration that your inconsiderate review of my own physical life is wrong...simply because you would not subject your personal human life to the experiment.

Hope you get to review the conditions personally, the only time you will personally realize that as a scientist you are wrong.

 

[smcder]

The brain is a black box located securely within our skull. The brain does not interact directly with the environment. Rather, the sensory organs of organisms are attuned via evolution to various energies within their environment. These organs send information (via physiological processes) about the environmental energies to the brain. This information about the environment is filtered, predicted, modulated, attenuated, integrated, and organized in the brain.

The contents of our consciousness are correlated not with the environmental energies (as those energies never directly interact with the brain) but rather with physiological states of the brain.

1. a black box encased in the skull with sensory neurons moving out to probe the environment
2. the environment tapering down into an intricate process capable of complex responses.

The contents of consciousness, environmental energies and physiological states of the brain are all correlated, transitive -

The (a) contents of our consciousness are correlated not with the (c) environmental energies (as those energies never directly interact with the brain) but rather with (b) physiological states of the brain.

You could say a is more strongly correlated with b.