Consciousness and the Paranormal

[boomerang]

But can you imagine how many ways your brain is deceiving you every day without your knowledge?

LINK: You Will Never Trust Your Brain Again After These Insane Optical Illusions!

This question is what fascinates me the most about such mulit-interpretive illusions. It's easy to imagine that our brains have really failed to process them at all. What also might be in full view of us that we fail to see ?

 

[smcder]

This question is what fascinates me the most about such mulit-interpretive illusions. It's easy to imaging that our brains have really failed to process them at all.

yet of course that imagining is yet another way to process them ... maybe the way ... when you meet the Borges in the hall of mirrors ... be sure and kill him for me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

This question is what fascinates me the most about such mulit-interpretive illusions. It's easy to imaging that our brains have really failed to process them at all. What also might be in full view of us that we fail to see ?

Well, that's the million dollar question, not so?

Even science now openly acknowledges that we perceive with our physical senses a very narrow aspect of the universe. The best we can do is create tools that are extensions of our physical senses. What are we not 'getting'?

 

[Soupie]

One also assumes that there are equally powerful "illusions" for our other senses as well. We know there are "cognitive" illusions/distortions as well.

I assume all these illusions are understood as adaptations but are there other theories?

 

[Michael Allen]

MA, I'm trying to parse out your post, but with admittedly limited success.

"God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends. This may not be true, but it sounds good, and is no sillier than any other theology." [Lazarus Long, _Time Enough for Love_ by Robert Heinlein]

Does this quote bear upon your argument by virtue of the traditional notion that nothing may be defined except by virtue of contrast ?

Perhaps, but removing the reference to "god" and you might have something close to what I've printed. The real question is what happens to the consciousness of an all-knowing being.

 

[smcder]

Perhaps, but removing the reference to "god" and you might have something close to what I've printed. The real question is what happens to the consciousness of an all-knowing being.

would we not call an all-knowing being "God"? (or at least "sir"?)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

I am going to try to throw a general reset into this forum--for the most part since I am a "lurker" who waits till something really makes me shift views. I find it useful to inform others when my views have shifted...not sure why, which you might think such an excuse is grounds to dismissing my remarks at the first realization of this fact (if you could determine the exact time you realize or realized this, then you may pass...)

So letting the unsuccessful dry jokes pass without much comment (wishful thinking), I will allow myself the prerogative (what does this mean?) of pretending the entire thread (as amazing and interesting as it is) has passed into and through my "mind" -- whatever that may be.


Take the fundamental quantities of physics (I am trying to get to the fundamental ontic root here...so this may sound strange to both philosophers and scientists/mathematicians

Mass: a quantity which denotes the properties of acceleration that are related to a force (another undefined quantity)
Force: a quantity which denotes the properties of resistance to change within a particular acceleration or mass
Acceleration: A spatiotemporal property relating and resistance to change with respect to force and mass
Space: relational categories of our visual cortex -- or best left undefined (try to define it)
Time: relational categories of deltas with respect to the physical properties other than time

OK if this all sounded strange, it is because I am trying to show the inter-dependencies of these concepts...and to show the artificiality with respect to your cognition...

Why does this seem artificial? Because they are quantities that are created to comprehend the world, but they are not the objects themselves...they are part of a tunnel (borrowed from Metzinger) of reality your mind has created that makes "sense" and can be manipulated in thought...the point is not to understand the world, but to understand how to envision the future of the world or the way in which you can guarantee your continued presence in the world (Dennett).

[edit: clarification, the sufficient survival "understanding" is must less than that total world relations understanding that is fiction (i.e. knowing everything and the relations of everything to everything)...this has caused a stack overflow in our minds, because we imagine that there is no minimally sufficient "understanding" with respect to continued existence...we imagine that such an understanding must be a potential "state" even though the gene machine has already hard wired what is optimal for billions of our own predecessors...think about the astronomical quantity of trial and error of all the generations of beings prior to yourself, then ask if any supercomputer should have total "all hands of deck" awareness of such a decision net....is it necessary?]

And "continued presence" should sound like BS to you...if it does, then high-five...because I myself ask the same question, "why is presence so important, nothingness is an easier accomplishment." However you can turn the tables on this proposition by showing that nothingness (absolute non-being) is the necessary ground of all perception and cognition. This I believe I have proved here (while stupidly trying to prove something else):

Grounds for Awareness and Consciousness | Gather

Without non-being, there is no basis for which a "being" can throw itself into the foreground of processing either my a mindless machine or a thinking machine (hint: this is why there is no difference). A mind is something which is denoted by the entity itself to itself--without this relation of thing to itself there is no mind (but relations and change of things to themselves are inevitable, therefore mindlessness is the absolute foundation of mind...understand?)

Before you go west, you have to have east...before you see something, you have to not see what's around ...before you are conscious, you must be asleep...to not be surprised by anything is to never be aware of anything (this is very important and easy to understand once you try to imagine what consciousness or awareness is like to an omniscient being)

Hope this helps.

-Z

Constance has asked me to let you all know that she is having some problems with the internet and posting to the forum, this is being worked on - and she can read the posts in the meantime. In response to Michael Allen's post:
Michael Allen wrote: “mindlessness is the absolute foundation of mind...understand?”
Constance asks:

Actually, no. Would you clarify your argument by expressing what philosophical consequences you draw from the above claim? And how these consequences will, or should, “throw a general reset into this forum”?

 

[boomerang]

Perhaps, but removing the reference to "god" and you might have something close to what I've printed. The real question is what happens to the consciousness of an all-knowing being.

I'm wondering if a single unitary sentience, an "all knowing universe" , would be undifferentiated information and therefore incapable of self-awareness. To borrow on the old theological thought experiment, the ability of omniscience to both make and not-make a rock so big that it both could and could-not lift it, seems (by human standards anyway) a kind of psychosis. The natural human inclination is to think of ourselves as an articulated subset of some vaster consciousness. Whether this is true or not is another matter.

 

[smcder]

I am going to try to throw a general reset into this forum--for the most part since I am a "lurker" who waits till something really makes me shift views. I find it useful to inform others when my views have shifted...not sure why, which you might think such an excuse is grounds to dismissing my remarks at the first realization of this fact (if you could determine the exact time you realize or realized this, then you may pass...)

So letting the unsuccessful dry jokes pass without much comment (wishful thinking), I will allow myself the prerogative (what does this mean?) of pretending the entire thread (as amazing and interesting as it is) has passed into and through my "mind" -- whatever that may be.


Take the fundamental quantities of physics (I am trying to get to the fundamental ontic root here...so this may sound strange to both philosophers and scientists/mathematicians

Mass: a quantity which denotes the properties of acceleration that are related to a force (another undefined quantity)
Force: a quantity which denotes the properties of resistance to change within a particular acceleration or mass
Acceleration: A spatiotemporal property relating and resistance to change with respect to force and mass
Space: relational categories of our visual cortex -- or best left undefined (try to define it)
Time: relational categories of deltas with respect to the physical properties other than time

OK if this all sounded strange, it is because I am trying to show the inter-dependencies of these concepts...and to show the artificiality with respect to your cognition...

Why does this seem artificial? Because they are quantities that are created to comprehend the world, but they are not the objects themselves...they are part of a tunnel (borrowed from Metzinger) of reality your mind has created that makes "sense" and can be manipulated in thought...the point is not to understand the world, but to understand how to envision the future of the world or the way in which you can guarantee your continued presence in the world (Dennett).

[edit: clarification, the sufficient survival "understanding" is must less than that total world relations understanding that is fiction (i.e. knowing everything and the relations of everything to everything)...this has caused a stack overflow in our minds, because we imagine that there is no minimally sufficient "understanding" with respect to continued existence...we imagine that such an understanding must be a potential "state" even though the gene machine has already hard wired what is optimal for billions of our own predecessors...think about the astronomical quantity of trial and error of all the generations of beings prior to yourself, then ask if any supercomputer should have total "all hands of deck" awareness of such a decision net....is it necessary?]

And "continued presence" should sound like BS to you...if it does, then high-five...because I myself ask the same question, "why is presence so important, nothingness is an easier accomplishment." However you can turn the tables on this proposition by showing that nothingness (absolute non-being) is the necessary ground of all perception and cognition. This I believe I have proved here (while stupidly trying to prove something else):

Grounds for Awareness and Consciousness | Gather

Without non-being, there is no basis for which a "being" can throw itself into the foreground of processing either my a mindless machine or a thinking machine (hint: this is why there is no difference). A mind is something which is denoted by the entity itself to itself--without this relation of thing to itself there is no mind (but relations and change of things to themselves are inevitable, therefore mindlessness is the absolute foundation of mind...understand?)

Before you go west, you have to have east...before you see something, you have to not see what's around ...before you are conscious, you must be asleep...to not be surprised by anything is to never be aware of anything (this is very important and easy to understand once you try to imagine what consciousness or awareness is like to an omniscient being)

Hope this helps.

-Z

is this thread dead, Zed?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

Not as far as I'm concerned. I hope to post some quotes/thoughts from two of Chalmers papers regarding ideas I've shared about monism, the origin of consciousness, and the concept that our mind is "constituted" of many smaller "units."

Regarding "z's" comments 1) they were too vague/abstract to understand, 2) what I think I did understand has already been addressed/discussed in this thread.

 

[smcder]

Not as far as I'm concerned. I hope to post some quotes/thoughts from two of Chalmers papers regarding ideas I've shared about monism, the origin of consciousness, and the concept that our mind is "constituted" of many smaller "units."

Regarding "z's" comments 1) they were too vague/abstract to understand, 2) what I think I did understand has already been addressed/discussed in this thread.

very good, but don't tell me ... tell him! ;-)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

Congrats all on hitting the 100 page mark in the thread! That doesn't happen too often and it's a credit to the handful of dedicated posters that kept it in development. I do hope a proper index of the thread will be published soon so slackers like me, consumed by other parts of life, can skip to the bits that woud be juicy to my brain.

On a related paranormal note, Koi produced a list of a series of dissertations on UFO and other related odd topics here: Dr Who?? : UFO PhD dissertations - free online, page 1

The one that caught my eye was called "The Construction of Self in Finnish First Person Supernatural Encounter Narratives", by Kirsi Haenninen, 2009 PhD, Ohio State University

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/osu1261592657/inline

I really liked her discussion around the roles of emotion as a means of communication and how the 'I' in first person narratives about paranormal contact with "supernatural" beings takes time to normalize the experience in the retelling. Yes, far away from contemplating the consciousness of supreme beings, but somehow more practical for me.

Please forgive my intrusion and carry on.

 

[Constance]

Not as far as I'm concerned. I hope to post some quotes/thoughts from two of Chalmers papers regarding ideas I've shared about monism, the origin of consciousness, and the concept that our mind is "constituted" of many smaller "units."

Regarding "z's" comments 1) they were too vague/abstract to understand, 2) what I think I did understand has already been addressed/discussed in this thread.

That's certainly my impression (of Michael Allen 's "reset") Soupie, and I too want to see the thread continue. I'm still working out computer issues but hope to be back there soon. In the meantime, I wish MA would take some time to clarify his point of view, the reasoning behind it, and why it should 'reset' this discussion of approaches to understanding what consciousness is.

I'd asked Steve to post this for me, but in the meantime my computer connectivity issue seems to have been resolved. {Thanks for keeping me in touch, Steve. }

 

[Constance]

Congrats all on hitting the 100 page mark in the thread! That doesn't happen too often and it's a credit to the handful of dedicated posters that kept it in development. I do hope a proper index of the thread will be published soon so slackers like me, consumed by other parts of life, can skip to the bits that woud be juicy to my brain.

Thanks Burnt. It would be daunting to try to read it all from the beginning (can't remember when that was). Love the humor in your expressed hope that someone will index the thread.

On a related paranormal note, Koi produced a list of a series of dissertations on UFO and other related odd topics here: Dr Who?? : UFO PhD dissertations - free online, page 1

The one that caught my eye was called "The Construction of Self in Finnish First Person Supernatural Encounter Narratives", by Kirsi Haenninen, 2009 PhD, Ohio State University

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/osu1261592657/inline

I really liked her discussion around the roles of emotion as a means of communication and how the 'I' in first person narratives about paranormal contact with "supernatural" beings takes time to normalize the experience in the retelling. Yes, far away from contemplating the consciousness of supreme beings, but somehow more practical for me.

This dissertation does sound interesting and I will read it. The underscored part is what interests me most. My spontaneous OBE at age 21, while not involving any 'supernatural' being that "I" had encountered in my ordinary state of consciousness, did raise issues of ambiguity concerning where 'I' was during the OBE -- i.e., in the consciousness that was observing my body from high across the room? or somehow still in my body, which I observed at a distance still reading the book I'd been reading when I suddenly found myself observing myself from high up in the corner 30 feet away? I had no sense during this experience of any consciousness in my body. The separation of my consciousness from my body was complete. All of my perception and thought during the OBE occurred from a distant point near the ceiling behind my body, at first located in or near the corner just beneath the ceiling and then moving along to the left, toward the center of the wall/ceiling juncture, apparently for a better view. My own consciousness during the experience was perhaps slightly startled but completely unemotional, as was the other consciousness I became aware of just to my left when I reached the midpoint of the wall/ceiling juncture. That consciousness seemed to be familiar with me and spoke as if to herself but so that I heard her in my own mind, referring to the 'me' normally in the body across the room: 'She's really a mess' -- but so calmly and almost indifferently that I was not alarmed. My impression was that whoever that was (and I felt that it was a 'she', a mature she) was essentially expressing the viewpoint that what was happening in the OBE was 'no big deal'. Perhaps she faded away at that point, but in any event I suddenly found myself back in the body, feeling seriously shocked by what had happened, and I immediately went in search of help.

I have also experienced at various times, while awake, the sensed presence in my body {chest cavity; head; and entire upper body in one flowing, but shocking, surge of energy} of three deeply loved family members weeks and months after they had 'died'. No mistaking who they were, btw. These experiences are among my numerous reasons for thinking that consciousness survives and moves freely following bodily death, and that there are no boundaries between one consciousness and another, whether embodied or not.

So returning to your underscored reference above, I would not be surprised if people who have experiences with consciousness that seems to them to be 'supernatural' also sense a mingling of the other consciousness with their own. Can't wait to read that dissertation.

 

[Michael Allen]

That's certainly my impression (of Michael Allen 's "reset") Soupie, and I too want to see the thread continue. I'm still working out computer issues but hope to be back there soon. In the meantime, I wish MA would take some time to clarify his point of view, the reasoning behind it, and why it should 'reset' this discussion of approaches to understanding what consciousness is.

I'd asked Steve to post this for me, but in the meantime my computer connectivity issue seems to have been resolved. {Thanks for keeping me in touch, Steve. }

I see the queue building up .... wasn't really expecting my earlier comments to arouse much interest. I'll try answering tomorrow (as well as the others). Sorry for the delay.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

The one that caught my eye was called "The Construction of Self in Finnish First Person Supernatural Encounter Narratives", by Kirsi Haenninen, 2009 PhD, Ohio State University

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/osu1261592657/inline

I really liked her discussion around the roles of emotion as a means of communication and how the 'I' in first person narratives about paranormal contact with "supernatural" beings takes time to normalize the experience in the retelling. . . .

I expected more from it than turned out to be there. It's more a (minor) contribution to sociology than to paranormal studies.

 

[Burnt State]

I expected more from it than turned out to be there. It's more a (minor) contribution to sociology than to paranormal studies.

Yes, i wouldn't call it earth shattering, but was more interested in the linguistic aspect of how we interpret the supernatural through personal narrative. The other part i appreciated about it was its sociological considerations in terms of how it explored who are the tellers of the tales and the nature of the tales told. I don't think that examinations of the 'paranormal' or mingling of consciousness could even begin to be categorized or discussed academically as these experiences are "i" experiences and most concerned with our perceptions and our formations of self. For me her approach is a concretized one, in the way that Vallee also approaches the discussion from known frames of reference as opposed to mystical guesswork, assumptions and descriptions. I don't think, in any observation of paranormal studies outside of lab testing which is minimal at best, there is much in the way that can be said about paranormality, though we can gain some insight into it through understanding who the experiencer is and their circumstances. I think that this helps out immensely with paranormal studies as unlike the mostly unverifiable experience, the experiencer can perhaps be quantified, and it may also help us to understand why some perceptions of paranormality play out the way that they do with different types of witnesses.

I do encourage you though to look through the other papers in that collection from Koi as it's a well rounded, historical examination of work in the field.

But on another note, your evolution of language link fit perfectly for a research project one of my students is completing and was of great benefit to her and the formation of her own thesis in this area.

 

[Soupie]

But can you imagine how many ways your brain is deceiving you every day without your knowledge?

When it comes to the mystery of consciousness, the nature of the subject or the "I" is one aspect that particularly fascinates me (though really, all aspects are fascinating).

If our brain is deceiving us... then it seems that we are distinct from our brain. Is this simply semantics, or is there really a mind-body duality? Or more precisely a subject-object duality?

In fact, its likely that everything you've ever experienced is heavily distorted so you can process and understand what you perceive.

So if we - the subject - are distinct from our brain/body, which is "having" the experiences? Is the brain/body having the experience or is the mind (the subject) having the experience?

I think many people confuse these concepts as above. Our brain can deceive us, but it is us who is having the experiences and not the brain? Who does the "processing?" Who does the perceiving? The brain or the mind? It's all very muddled.

People tend to think something like organisms > minds > experiences. That is, there are objects that have minds that have experiences.

I think this is wrong.

I think minds = experiences. Furthermore, I don't think organisms "have" macro-experiences per se. I think they "generate" macro-experiences. (Chalmers has convinced me that micro-experiences are fundamental and/or non-physical.)

Going way back to my music analogy: we wouldn't say an orchestra "has" music, but we would say an orchestra "generates" music. Music is to macro-experience, as musical notes are to micro-experience. Musical notes are to vibrating molecules as micro-experiences are to Chalmers' fundamental mental property.

@Constance, I believe, has posted material or thinkers indicating that the subject/object divide is false. I agree. Chalmers addresses this briefly at the end of one of his papers on Panpsychism. Chalmers appears to believe that phenomenal experience must entail a subject-object pair. My conception is that phenomenal experience is an object. It just so happens that that object is us.

While agree with most of Chalmers' conclusions - which I hope to share at some freaking point - I think this subject/object issue is huge.

 

[smcder]

When it comes to the mystery of consciousness, the nature of the subject or the "I" is one aspect that particularly fascinates me (though really, all aspects are fascinating).

If our brain is deceiving us... then it seems that we are distinct from our brain. Is this simply semantics, or is there really a mind-body duality? Or more precisely a subject-object duality?

So if we - the subject - are distinct from our brain/body, which is "having" the experiences? Is the brain/body having the experience or is the mind (the subject) having the experience?

I think many people confuse these concepts as above. Our brain can deceive us, but it is us who is having the experiences and not the brain? Who does the "processing?" Who does the perceiving? The brain or the mind? It's all very muddled.

People tend to think something like organisms > minds > experiences. That is, there are objects that have minds that have experiences.

I think this is wrong.

I think minds = experiences. Furthermore, I don't think organisms "have" macro-experiences per se. I think they "generate" macro-experiences. (Chalmers has convinced me that micro-experiences are fundamental and/or non-physical.)

Going way back to my music analogy: we wouldn't say an orchestra "has" music, but we would say an orchestra "generates" music. Music is to macro-experience, as musical notes are to micro-experience. Musical notes are to vibrating molecules as micro-experiences are to Chalmers' fundamental mental property.

@Constance, I believe, has posted material or thinkers indicating that the subject/object divide is false. I agree. Chalmers addresses this briefly at the end of one of his papers on Panpsychism. Chalmers appears to believe that phenomenal experience must entail a subject-object pair. My conception is that phenomenal experience is an object. It just so happens that that object is us.

While agree with most of Chalmers' conclusions - which I hope to share at some freaking point - I think this subject/object issue is huge.

My conception is that phenomenal experience is an object. It just so happens that that object is us.

So, for you, the subjectivity of objects is subject to the objection of the objectification of subjectivity?

"I" suppose it does no good to protest that, subjectively, "I" object to being subjected to the objectification of that very subjectivity?

E-Prime

 

[Tyger]

This thread has reached 100 pages - all quality. Congratulations, Campers!