Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Jeff Davis]

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.

I agree thoroughly with what your stating here. In fact, we can see proof of what you are stating in the recreation of myths throughout time in recorded history. These types of paradigmatic shifts usher in new dark ages in between greater periods of enlightenment continually throughout history. One such example, and I will NOT allow this thread to be taken off track, or out of it's contextual bearing, due to my hyper imaginative interjections, is mankind's belief orientations concerning God. God's personage, and far more precisely, personality, has evolved dramatically over time due to nothing more than mankind's abstract interpretive relationship to specific historic context. When Paul, then at the time Saul of Tarsus, was blinded via his encounter with an extremely bright light in the sky on the road to Damascus, he did not call and report the matter to MUFON. But rather, according to contextual bearing, his experience was interpreted as a direct intervention from God. As a result of this specific context, a tremendous amount of religious influence was born into creation.

Mankind has recreated such misidentified objectivity contexts many times based on his limited temporal understandings. IMO, this is the very essence of that which *is* environmentally relevant consciousness transcendence. The progressive nature of mankind's hypothetical relationship to the Superspectrum is so beyond mind blowing, even as to encompass every balance conceivable within nature. This is precisely why I believe that consciousness is not fundamentally inherent to cognition, but rather, is that which cognition responsibly finds both sentience, and indeed, relativity within.

 

[Soupie]

This is precisely why I believe that consciousness is not fundamentally inherent to cognition, but rather, is that which cognition responsibly finds both sentience, and indeed, relativity within.

You've expressed this idea before, and I didn't understand it at the time. However, having read Chalmer's explanation of an insight made by Russel, I think I can conceptualize it now.

Consciousness and its Place in Nature

This view takes its cue from Bertrand Russell's discussion of physics in The Analysis of Matter. Russell pointed out that physics characterizes physical entities and properties by their relations to one another and to us. For example, a quark is characterized by its relations to other physical entities, and a property such as mass is characterized by an associated dispositional role, such as the tendency to resist acceleration. At the same time, physics says nothing about the intrinsic nature of these entities and properties. Where we have relations and dispositions, we expect some underlying intrinsic properties that ground the dispositions, characterizing the entities that stand in these relations.[*] But physics is silent about the intrinsic nature of a quark, or about the intrinsic properties that play the role associated with mass. So this is one metaphysical problem: what are the intrinsic properties of fundamental physical systems? ...

Phenomenal properties seem to be intrinsic properties that are hard to fit in with the structural/dynamic character of physical theory; and arguably, they are the only intrinsic properties that we have direct knowledge of. Russell's insight was that we might solve both these problems at once. Perhaps the intrinsic properties of the physical world are themselves phenomenal properties. Or perhaps the intrinsic properties of the physical world are not phenomenal properties, but nevertheless constitute phenomenal properties: that is, perhaps they are protophenomenal properties. If so, then consciousness and physical reality are deeply intertwined.

In other words, Russell/Chalmers -- like you -- are suggesting that consciousness -- or at least the raw material of consciousness -- is the primal, intrinsic essence of reality, and that the physical world is built on top of this phenomenal or proto-phenomenal matrix.

But perhaps this matrix can be better described as a superfluid as Thad Robert's does in the following TEDX presentation which I've already linked above:

(Edit: This embedded automagically. I just wanted to provide a link.)

On this view, reality is a superfluid made up of "quanta" which are essentially pure (proto-) phenomena/consciousness. The interaction and behavior of these quanta give rise to all physical and mental systems. Robert's goes so far as to describe point particles as being eddies or vortices caused by the fluid-like behavior of these quanta. Fascinating and thought-provoking to say the least.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

 

[smcder]

episodes on Godel and Oppenheimer coming up

Blog | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Topic for #95: Gödel on Math | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

"So if we know a system is consistent, then we know it without a proof. According to Turing, the mind is a machine that generates its knowledge through something going on under the surface that is much like the process of mathematical proof, so on this conception, we just couldn’t know anything that we couldn’t get through this kind of proof. The ultimate conclusion of Gödel’s paper is a disjunction:

Either mathematics is incompletable…, that its evident axioms can never be comprised in a finite rule, that is to say, the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) inifinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine, or there exist absolutely unsolvable [mathematical problems].

He spends the rest of the paper discussing these two possibilities. Folks like Roger Penrose run with the first option here: we are not Turing machines, our minds are not computers in any sense."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

@Constance (from the same link)

We also read a less developed, more philosophical unpublished essay from 1961 called “The Modern Development of the Foundations of Mathematics in Light of Philosophy” (read it here with an introduction with helpful background from Dagfinn Føllesdal) that more directly takes on the mathematical realism vs. nominalism debate: there are “rightward” strains in philosophy like rationalism (in the sense of Plato, Descartes, and Leibniz) and theology, and “leftward” strains like empiricism. Despite the historical precedence of the leftward with the rise of science, he describes projects (like Mill’s) that try to derive mathematical truths from experience to have been largely unpersuasive. Gödel sees the best option as a middle way between the two directions, and ends up recommending Husserl’s phenomenology as a good option for exploring what this kind of intuition consists in, though he doesn’t give us much detail in the paper about what advantages he thinks this will bring us.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

You've expressed this idea before, and I didn't understand it at the time. However, having read Chalmer's explanation of an insight made by Russel, I think I can conceptualize it now.

In other words, Russell/Chalmers -- like you -- are suggesting that consciousness -- or at least the raw material of consciousness -- is the primal, intrinsic essence of reality, and that the physical world is built on top of this phenomenal or proto-phenomenal matrix.

But perhaps this matrix can be better described as a superfluid as Thad Robert's does in the following TEDX presentation which I've already linked above:

(Edit: This embedded automagically. I just wanted to provide a link.)

On this view, reality is a superfluid made up of "quanta" which are essentially pure (proto-) phenomena/consciousness. The interaction and behavior of these quanta give rise to all physical and mental systems. Robert's goes so far as to describe point particles as being eddies or vortices caused by the fluid-like behavior of these quanta. Fascinating and thought-provoking to say the least.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

is this the same guy?

Confessions of a moon rock thief - CBS News


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

The ultimate conclusion of Gödel’s paper is a disjunction:

Either mathematics is incompletable…, that its evident axioms can never be comprised in a finite rule, that is to say, the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) inifinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine, or there exist absolutely unsolvable [mathematical problems].

He spends the rest of the paper discussing these two possibilities. Folks like Roger Penrose run with the first option here: we are not Turing machines, our minds are not computers in any sense."

I sincerely wonder if this includes quantum computers/computation. I'm sure Pentose was aware of this possibility even then, so it must.

Even so, the idea that brains (not minds) may be quantum computers is intriguing.

A quantum (computing) gun revealed by quantum smoke | Ars Technica

When we perform computations in an ordinary computer, we have to manipulate each bit individually. Sure, the computer might make this faster through some sort of parallelization, but there's still a set of transistors flipping individual bits for each operation. A quantum computer is different. ...

By these three powers combined, a quantum computer is able to perform a sort of parallelism that is unlike anything a classical computer can manage. In a sense, a quantum computer explores all possible solutions—including incorrect solutions—at once. When it obtains the outcome, it is probabilistic: the correct solution is the most probable, but all other answers have some nonzero probability as well. To ensure that it picks the right solution, a quantum computer must be run several times to ensure that the most probable outcome dominates the other answers.

 

[Soupie]

is this the same guy?

Confessions of a moon rock thief - CBS News

Yes.

Thad Roberts | Speaker Profile and Speaking Topics

 

[smcder]

I sincerely wonder if this includes quantum computers/computation. I'm sure Pentose was aware of this possibility even then, so it must.

Even so, the idea that brains (not minds) may be quantum computers is intriguing.

"Penrose believes that such deterministic yet non-algorithmic processes may come into play in the quantum mechanical wave function reduction, and may be harnessed by the brain. He argues that the present computer is unable to have intelligence because it is an algorithmically deterministic system. He argues against the viewpoint that the rational processes of the mind are completely algorithmic and can thus be duplicated by a sufficiently complex computer. This contrasts with supporters of strong artificial intelligence, who contend that thought can be simulated algorithmically. He bases this on claims that consciousness transcends formal logic because things such as the insolubility of the halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem prevent an algorithmically based system of logic from reproducing such traits of human intelligence as mathematical insight. These claims were originally espoused by the philosopher John Lucas of Merton College, Oxford."

- Wikipedia follows with a discussion of Penrose and Hameroffs theory of micro tubules and Tegmark's critique ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

Re: the superfluid theory of reality

Thad isn't the only physicist/philosopher exploring the option, incase some are concerned due to his background.

You can read more at—gasp—Wikipedia: Superfluid vacuum theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[smcder]

Re: the superfluid theory of reality

Thad isn't the only physicist/philosopher exploring the option, incase some are concerned due to his background.

You can read more at—gasp—Wikipedia: Superfluid vacuum theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol

I just googled him to find out more and turned up that article: he appears to be brilliant and to have a "complex" sense of morality ... And I have mixed feelings about TED. but intellectual history has it's share of scoundrels ... the ideas stand on their own merits



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jeff Davis]

You've expressed this idea before, and I didn't understand it at the time. However, having read Chalmer's explanation of an insight made by Russel, I think I can conceptualize it now.

1) In other words, Russell/Chalmers -- like you -- are suggesting that consciousness -- or at least the raw material of consciousness -- is the primal, intrinsic essence of reality, and that the physical world is built on top of this phenomenal or proto-phenomenal matrix.

2) But perhaps this matrix can be better described as a superfluid as Thad Robert's does in the following TEDX presentation which I've already linked above:

(Edit: This embedded automagically. I just wanted to provide a link.)

On this view, reality is a superfluid made up of "quanta" which are essentially pure (proto-) phenomena/consciousness. The interaction and behavior of these quanta give rise to all physical and mental systems. Robert's goes so far as to describe point particles as being eddies or vortices caused by the fluid-like behavior of these quanta. Fascinating and thought-provoking to say the least.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

1) Absolutely! I don't believe I have ever heard it put more succinctly than when Max Planck stated: "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

IMO, this "force" that Planck refers to is environmental consciousness.

2) I will look into this "superfluid" vid asap. Thank you! Personally, I find what we know of physics, (all applied branches) and the basic laws of physics, acutely attributable in terms of a possible basic applied understanding to these hypothetically explained speculations. There is so much key conceptual information contained within Quantum Mechanics alone, one could spend the rest of their days analogously exploring the operative consciousness parallels and possibilities.

I wonder if what this "superfluid" represents is much like the aether referred to in early physics considerations? I am certain of one thing for sure. TEDx here I come after work tonight!

 

[michaelangel1453]

Now, really guys, may I request a toning down of the bromance among you fellows? Thank you.

Soupie, there you go ladling out that thin watery gruel again. "...reality is a superfluid made of "quanta" which are essentially pure (proto-) phenomena/consciousness." And I can't bear to type any more of that.

And invoking that dumbass Roberts. And another of you calls him brilliant. And TED is a good part kooks. And Tedx even more.

Something tells me you guys adore Jared Diamond and Malcolm Gladwell.

 

[Soupie]

I wonder if what this "superfluid" represents is much like the aether referred to in early physics considerations? I am certain of one thing for sure. TEDx here I come after work tonight!

The ideas are related, yes, but now through the lens of quantum physics as opposed to classical physics.

Superfluid vacuum theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of a luminiferous aether as a medium sustaining electromagnetic waves was discarded after the advent of the special theory of relativity. The aether, as conceived in classical physics leads to several contradictions; in particular, aether having a definite velocity at each space-time point will exhibit a preferred direction. This conflicts with the relativistic requirement that all directions within a light cone are equivalent. However, as early as in 1951 P.A.M. Dirac published two papers where he pointed out that we should take into account quantum fluctuations in the flow of the aether.[1][2] His arguments involve the application of the uncertainty principle to the velocity of aether at any space-time point, implying that the velocity will not be a well-defined quantity. In fact, it will be distributed over various possible values. At best, one could represent the aether by a wave function representing the perfect vacuum state for which all aether velocities are equally probable. These works can be regarded as the birth point of the theory.

There's a good explanation of the theory at Roberts' website: Overview of qst : Einstein’s Intuition : Quantum Space Theory

A rather significant and often overlooked (under-visualized) remnant of modern physics is that space appears to be quantized, that is, made of tiny, indivisible pieces (quanta). This flies in the face of our common-sense experience of Nature (of the continuous three dimensions of space that we usually try to assign to Nature), but quantum mechanics seems to point to this fact (if it can be said to point to anything). ...

[T]his … highlights a fundamental problem in the approach taken by modern physics. For the past several decades, theorists and mathematicians have been working on constructing a framework of Nature that is capable of mathematically combining the descriptions of general relativity and quantum mechanics under the same rubric. … But their efforts have been focused on organizing Nature’s data into a self-consistent assembly — like the ones and zeros of a digital picture. The problem is that this inductive approach does not encourage, let alone require, the discovery of a conceptual portal.”

“Even if physicists were one day to conclude that their assembly was mathematically correct, it would not actually increase our ability to truly comprehend Nature unless it was translated into some sort of picture. Therefore, since it is really the picture that we are after, maybe it is time for us to consider whether or not our efforts will bear more fruit under a different approach. Specifically, to maximize our chances of completing our goal of intuitively grasping Nature’s complete form, maybe we should follow the lead of young Einstein and return to a deductive conceptual approach. Perhaps it is time for us to place our focus on constructing a richer map of physical reality.”

It's funny, my approach to metaphysics has always been conceptual, non-mathematical. I can remember as young kid wondering how many times something could be cut in half and realizing that time was essentially movement. Since I rely on a conceptual/visual approach to metaphysics, I use a lot of analogies. Apparently, one of the benefits of QST is that it is conceptual in nature.

Here's a review of the concept/book from an admittedly random blog:

Physics and Everything Else: Quantum Space Theory

I decided to finally start going through the book. Now, the book is meant for the layman, partially because of the base idea behind the theory and partially because the mathematics of the theory hasn't been completed yet. (But there were some parts that to me seemed beyond the understanding of most people.) The base idea is that the laws of the universe should be able to be conceptually and intuitively understood by just about anyone. (It's the reason the website and book are called Einstein's Intuition. Einstein developed General Relativity because he wanted to describe gravity in a way that could be easily understood by all. He also wanted to extend that idea to the other areas of physics, but got caught up in a few snags in his theories.)

Now, many of you more scientifically minded individuals are probably thinking to yourselves that a theory isn't valid unless it can be described mathematically. You won't even be convinced unless the theory has a mathematical representation. Conceptual pictures are basically gibberish to you. Well, I respectably disagree. A picture's worth a thousand words and once you can think up an idea that is consistent and can be conceptually pictured, the mathematics is guaranteed to be there. It's just a matter of time. So to me getting a conceptual picture is much more important. (It's the reason I don't like quantum physics. Physics is yet to come up with a consistent conceptual picture of quantum physics. Except for one that was forgotten and is used by qst.)

I'm especially intrigued by the assertion that the quantized nature of spacetime has been "overlooked" and/or forgotten about. Maybe there's valid scientific reason this is the case?

In any case, this is how I've conceptualized metaphysical reality for some time, and since being introduced to Chalmers' Hard Problem and Constitutive Russellian Panprotopsychism, I find the two concepts dovetail nicely.

 

[smcder]

Now, really guys, may I request a toning down of the bromance among you fellows? Thank you.

Soupie, there you go ladling out that thin watery gruel again. "...reality is a superfluid made of "quanta" which are essentially pure (proto-) phenomena/consciousness." And I can't bear to type any more of that.

And invoking that dumbass Roberts. And another of you calls him brilliant. And TED is a good part kooks. And Tedx even more.

Something tells me you guys adore Jared Diamond and Malcolm Gladwell.

Ohhh I LOVE Jared Diamond ...

Cracklin' Rosie get on board!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

Soupie, there you go ladling out that thin watery gruel again. "...reality is a superfluid made of "quanta" which are essentially pure (proto-) phenomena/consciousness." And I can't bear to type any more of that.

Why not? Which aspects of QST do you disagree with? Which aspects of Constitutive Russellian Panprotopsychism do you disagree with? As these are two very specific models, you should have no problem pointing out where you think they're flawed. (And I mean that sincerely.)

Which model of consciousness do you prefer?

With all due respect - and again, sincerely - you are owed none, the only things you've offered to add to this thread is to be overly (perhaps autistically?) literal, to show your ignorance of large issues in biology, and to share that people can tell the difference between trees and flowers, haha.

 

[Soupie]

Soupie, there you go ladling out that thin watery gruel again.

What I'm doing, Mike, is discussing consciousness and the paranormal with a bunch of fellow layman.

The ideas and concepts I've been discussing, while partially arrived at on my own, are those of none-other than non-laymen such as Chalmers, Russell, and various physicists (some more ethical than others, ehem).

All you've done is display your ignorance. If you care to enlighten me on either topic, I'm all ears. Ball's in your court, Mikey. Let's see what you got!

 

[michaelangel1453]

I don't follow the Mikey stuff. What's with that? You seem very vulnerable and sensitive. From my first post here, my point has been that much here by you guys and lady is gibberish. I've read the actual books by every researcher of consciousness mentioned and invoked here, but, sorry, you three or four here just do not write clearly and lucidly. You use long, painfully long sentences lavishly seasoned with names of researchers and schools and ideas they posit, but, really, the meaning is lost and posts descend into impenetrable masses. So much, too, what, sorry, I call pretentiousness. Hence my own invocation of Twain regarding your writing.

As for adding to the discussion, or participating in it, don't you see that you few came together as a perfect storm? You caress each other, encourage and tug each other prettily to elicit more and more of the same. Some may think that this thread is an intellectual giant in its discussion, so for me to come in and point out that any coherence it once had dissolved long ago is, yes, an undoubted blow to egos.

I'm purposely ignoring your specific challenge in your post. I'm pointing out that invoking names and letting your minds go wild into gibberish is the forest you miss and which I'm pointing out. You are lost in the trees. There is no entry into this thread because the brush is so thick.

Some things are evident obliquely. When one of you posts interminably as I've described on this thread and then rants about ufo coverups and non human agencies responsible for cattle mutilations, well, that is more telling than you may know. Also, and very illustrative, I've seen researchers, etc. very misrepresented and not accurately employed. It will not do, I'm sorry to say, to dismiss me as autistic, for one. Sad.

In short, this thread is a turnoff because of its pretentiousness and denseness. I'll leave you alone on it, but I just thought it needed a bit of upbraiding.

 

[Soupie]

I've read the actual books by every researcher of consciousness mentioned and invoked here, but, sorry, you three or four here just do not write clearly and lucidly. ... I'll leave you alone on it, but I just thought it needed a bit of upbraiding.

Uh oh, Mikey. I'm beginning continuing to believe you've got nothing to offer.

Please, end the merciless upbraiding and answer the questions, Michael.

Which aspects of QST do you disagree with?

Which aspects of Constitutive Russellian Panprotopsychism do you disagree with?

Which model of consciousness do you prefer?

 

[Soupie]

It will not do, I'm sorry to say, to dismiss me as autistic, for one. Sad.

But of course it will, mate! Try to follow along!

Complete stranger with troll-like name chimes into long thread and insults (not to be confused with enlightens) participants. When said participants graciously and sincerely ask for troll's opinion/knowledge, only more insults are forthcoming. Troll continues with insults:

Soupie, there you go ladling out that thin watery gruel again. ... And I can't bear to type any more of that.

Troll ignores additional, sincere requests to enlighten and responds with socially-impaired astonishment:

You seem very vulnerable and sensitive.

Haha, I'll stick with the ASD label for now.