• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I understand it, the author would not characterize messianic sensibility as "utter obsession" - I can't find any form of the word obsess in the article itself ... my understanding, is that he feels it is a call from God:

Sorry if I mangled the paradigm a bit. I was having some difficulty separating your original statements from quotes and ideas of others. (Ahh...the aging brain.:confused: )

Your observations about effects on belief systems by the Civil War in the North vs the South are interesting. I've sometimes wondered what the collective personality of the American south was like before the Civil War. The best description I have encountered so far is de Tocqueville's comparison of North vs South in America, written before the war. de Tocqueville was quite astute, and his comparison of values and attitudes is worth reading.

As for divine narratives, the people who really worry me are the ones who seem to outwardly function as if guided by mankind's hard won process of reasoning, while they in reality obey the voice of tribal imperative confused with the 'word of God'. I was myself partly raised in that tradition and I know it well.
 
Believe me, I've read nearly every author, scholar, philosopher, researcher mentioned in this labyrinthine thread and, well, will spare it another adjective that got me into some hot water. I will say that I now understand Injun Joe's last desperate efforts to get out of that tortuously winding cave Tom and Becky successfully escaped. My overriding question is: where's the pleasure, the painful pleasure sometimes, that I get reading these researchers of consciousness? I mean, their actual books, where they write, yes, in a scholarly way, but in a clear way that makes the point and elicits goosepimples? Why can't the participants here abandon the tortured parsing of words and silly standing on "rules" of debate and get the pleasure? The writers constantly invoked don't write like this. A group of these researchers discussing the subject wouldn't have one of them announce portentously that he was "resetting" the discussion. And which of you is the, what was it, the esoteric occultist? And which has been told he was an alien, what was it, three times?

Mark Twain wrote an hilarious essay showing how a scene from Fenimore Cooper could have been excised of extraneous and redundant passages for a leaner yet still interesting and riveting narrative. He did it in good spirit and I really don't think Cooper would have been too insulted. I fear, however, that even Twain would quake at such an undertaking regarding this thread, because it is very largely unintelligible. Yes, I wish I could be kinder, but the whole thing is impenetrable, and any soul it may have hoped for at first is gone long ago. Truly a poor lost soul. We can only hope it finds a deserved and pacific rest at last, and a straight course after its convoluted journey trying to escape its prison here.

Yes, this is honest, and not "trolling," and meant to be constructive. How could this monster go on for so horrifically long with so very few participants without a brave knight emerging at last to slay it?

Even brave knights get bucked off their high horse (eventually)--probability is very low this being the first time for you . Suppose you did read "every author, scholar, philosopher" etc., in this forum--I cannot tell one way or another. You have offered nothing to the discussion.

I am done here. If any one else has a question for me, send me a message.
 
Last edited:
A quote from that essay fits that eternal and annoying question brought up by one of you and which I'll paraphrase, because a direct quote of it does it no service: when is a tree a bush and when is a bush a flower and when is a tree a flower.... oh, that's painful, and no doubt great intellects have pondered it fruitlessly, it is so profound.
Yes, indeed they have:

Do Species Really Exist? | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

But you knew that, right?
 
I dutifully read the article at that link, but clearly it's addressing the biology of species definition and research. Your profound quote about trees, bushes, and flowers was very obviously dealing with perception, vision, and consciousness. Surely you see that. Of course you do. I was just pointing out that your quote was as Twain describes. And the whole context of the post posing that profound dilemma had no connection to the article you linked to.
 
So how about enlightening us all and explaining to the poster the difference between the comments and the link. Specifically, not just a claim.
 
Gene and Soupie, I can only point out again that the quote is a frankly absurd question. The post is clearly there to read for both of you. Its whole context is concerning vision, perception, and consciousness, and yes, it makes little sense in and of itself.

The article linked to is very coherent. It's about the history of research into speciation and the biology of it. It speaks to nothing regarding that whole post of his that posed his question about bushes, trees, and flowers.

You must take a few minutes and read both. It's very self evident. Sorry.
 
Hey, if you are up to it, message me, Michael..I won' be too harsh(who am I kidding) ...I will use curse words though.
 
Last try, but you're merely showing you haven't read his whole post and the article. His quote, surrounded by impenetrable gibberish, I'm really sorry to say: "From (sic) example, when is a flower a bush and a bush a tree and a tree a flower? The boundaries between objects are macro illusions; that is, the (sic) aren't really any boundaries."

The article linked to is understandable and discusses the biology of speciation and talks of nothing of Soupie contemplating his navel and knee and ankle and seeing no difference between them because they are macro illusions and on and on incomprehensively.
 
Yes, this hugbox tends to get to one, yet, why shit on the show(not in this thread, but you did.). To each his own still, may we never cross paths.
 
I dutifully read the article at that link, but clearly it's addressing the biology of species definition and research. Your profound quote about trees, bushes, and flowers was very obviously dealing with perception, vision, and consciousness.
My profound quote about trees, bushes, and flowers was about the fundamental nature of reality. There's good reason to believe that the fundamental nature of reality is quantized.

Let me try to make this clear to you then: That means everything you see is really made up of small little things. Since everything is really made of small little things (micro), there really aren't any boundaries between the big things (macro) you see.

I mentioned the species issue in biology as an analogy/example -- something to help people understand this concept. (Whoosh. It went over your head. That's okay, friend.) Just as there aren't true boundaries between species, there aren't true boundaries between anything. Just as all species share a common descent, so do all things share a common descent.

Boundaries of this sort exist only in our minds. Ergo meaning only exists in our minds.

(I do apologize for the typos. I will admit that my last couple posts have been done in a hurry between other projects.)
 
"Just as there aren't true boundaries between species, there aren't true boundaries between anything." Hoo whee, what a load of baloney. And analogies are very helpful when one exists. You just thought you could throw that link out triumphantly and when it was shown there was no correlation, you caved with over my head. Believe me, this thread isn't over my head. You been given free rein to run your mouths with the most gibberish ever assembled, and unchallenged. I'll just leave you to it, perhaps chiming in here and there with reality. Oh, but there is no reality, and man is deity creating his own reality and on and on.
 
"Just as there aren't true boundaries between species, there aren't true boundaries between anything." Hoo whee, what a load of baloney. And analogies are very helpful when one exists. You just thought you could throw that link out triumphantly and when it was shown there was no correlation, you caved with over my head. Believe me, this thread isn't over my head. You been given free rein to run your mouths with the most gibberish ever assembled, and unchallenged. I'll just leave you to it, perhaps chiming in here and there with reality. Oh, but there is no reality, and man is deity creating his own reality and on and on.
Yeah, those grapes were probably sour anyway, haha.
 
Wow, that was profound. So when you give flowers to a girlfriend, Soupie, how do you tell them from the bushes and trees? But of course you depend on the 100% of the population who know a bush from a tree from a flower. If that sounds unfair it's exactly what you said. How do you eat and drive? Dress up those "macro illusions" all you want, they're still simpering and walk with the gait of a monkey with a parasol, as Twain said. Go ahead. Have your last word. I'll leave you be. Just don't go giving bushes to your girlfriend.
 
Wow, that was profound. So when you give flowers to a girlfriend, Soupie, how do you tell them from the bushes and trees? But of course you depend on the 100% of the population who know a bush from a tree from a flower. If that sounds unfair it's exactly what you said. How do you eat and drive? Dress up those "macro illusions" all you want, they're still simpering and walk with the gait of a monkey with a parasol, as Twain said. Go ahead. Have your last word. I'll leave you be. Just don't go giving bushes to your girlfriend.
Hm, it's almost like you want to have a discussion about this! Great.

Typically these macro illusions are fine. And by typically I mean for some people, all of their lives.

But when we begin to discuss things such as consciousness, meaning, the paranormal, UFOs, physics, and other topics these "macro illusions" and the interconnectedness of reality needs to be considered.

But you're right, for most of us a rose is a rose and not a collection of particles which may actually be eddies in the super fluid vacuum of space.
 
Last edited:
I wanted to just bring this to the attention of those centered here on cognition and consciousness. I thought about sending a private message to Steve or whomever, but just know that I am not trying to change subject matter here, or be rude in the least, but rather just due to the fact that everyone that routinely participates in this thread is so passionately dedicated to the mind and consciousness, you might find this fascinating apart from this threads exact current context. This is really a fascinating quick read: What Happens to the Brain During Spiritual Experiences? - Lynne Blumberg - The Atlantic

I am particularly blown away by the brains monitored (scanned) activity during the act of speaking in tongues.

Great article - I was trying to think of Newberg the other day in a post, a book of his I read a while back.

You certainly don't have to contact me to post something, or anyone else I don't think - it's just my opinion that several topics could break out onto their own threads, but that's up to the individual posters - otherwise, it's a very broad thread and to me, I think this article fits right in.
 
True to the operating manual of this thread and its reliance on links, the provider of the link to Twain had clearly no idea that that was not the essay I was referencing. Though funny indeed, it is surpassed in effect by the one Twain wrote about Cooper's prose style. Because the actual book containing this essay is probably not on any shelf of the participants' try entering this into google: pegasus.cc.ucf.edu and then the word twain and I think it'll come up. That no one caught that there was more than one by Twain is illustrative.

A quote from that essay fits that eternal and annoying question brought up by one of you and which I'll paraphrase, because a direct quote of it does it no service: when is a tree a bush and when is a bush a flower and when is a tree a flower.... oh, that's painful, and no doubt great intellects have pondered it fruitlessly, it is so profound.

Twain's quote from his essay captures it well: it "...simpers along with an airy, complacent, monkey-with-a-parasol gait which is not suited to..." the discussion of not only consciousness but of anything.

And schizophrenia is truly a condition not helped by the self styled "renegade psychologist" quoted by the same (I think; the participants seem so interchangeable) who called it some sort of social construct and characteristic of messianic.... oh gosh.

I was aware that there were two essays.

I have some experience working directly with persons diagnosed with schizophrenia and I thought it was apparent that the author of the article I quoted from was taking an extreme position?

Have you posted on this forum under another userid? You "sound" very familiar!

My guess is that your comments will ultimately stimulate more activity on this thread - I hope you'll choose to be a constructive part of that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another analogy/example to illustrate my point, which I've mentioned before: the concept of "teenager." We all know what a teenager is, and it would be silly to say that teenagers "don't exist" but the reality is that they don't exist outside of the mind.

Aren't there 12-year-olds and 20-year-olds who have the same behaviors as teenagers? Yes. In many cases there's no difference between them other than the label/boundary that we have created and use to capture the wild phenemonon that is an adolescent of a particular age. That is, the boundary between teenagers and non-teenagers doesn't really exist outside of the mind.

That's not to say that such labels/boundaries aren't helpful or even necessary. They are. However we have to be careful that such language and conceptualizing doesn't constrain our thinking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top