• 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

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, Mike, since you seem to have referred obliquely to me in your most recent diatribe, please tell us where you find my posts concerning the phenomenology of consciousness to be misleading or erroneous.
 
michaelangel1453 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think we all are vulnerable and sensitive and it's not hard to hurt someone's feelings or ego. Being kind can be a challenge but it's beneficial - most of us do better with encouragement.

I suspect most of us are pretty aware of our shortcomings - I don't get the sense anyone here has an inflated sense of their abilities -

And the topic is very complex. But I think we are sincere and we've treated one another with civility for the most part.

your posts have reinforced for me the effect of words and encouraged me to make more efforts toward right speech - for that I am grateful.

I hope you will choose to contribute to the substance of this discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
smcder said:
And the topic is very complex. But I think we are sincere and we've treated one another with civility for the most part.
Click to expand...
Yes, as we've noted, the topics of both consciousness and the paranormal can be approached from many different levels (micro/macro) and worldviews (spiritual/materialistic). While this has made the discussion rich with ideas, theories, and models, it's also made it confusing, wordy, and jargon-filled. And also very difficult, I'm sure, for someone to jump in at, say, page 87.

I confess to having difficulty understanding the ideas that participants have attempted to share in this discussion, and I am well aware that the ideas I have tried to share have been unclear and confusing to others as well. And in some cases, it may not be confusion, but simple disagreement. If nothing else, this thread has introduced me to a plethora of new concepts and models of consciousness and it has helped me determine the language and models that capture my own ideas regarding the topic.

But in all of this, never have I thought any participates were insincere or purposefully obfuscating their ideas. Whenever I've been unclear about an idea someone had shared - and desired to have a better understanding of it - all I've done is ask for clarification, and it has come. Basic social interaction.

Also, I confess I don't understand the criticism of the "huggable" nature of this discussion nor the claim that one might try to "have the last word." It's not a debate. It's a discussion, among laymen, of two complex, controversial topics. Intellectual social interaction, if you will.
 
Vacuum States of Consciousness


http://www.alanwallace.org/Vacuum States Essay.pdf


"While physicists have devised their theories of the true and false vacuums on the basis of physical experiments and mathematical analysis, Buddhists have formulated their theories of true and false vacuum states of consciousness on the basis of contemplative experience and philosophical analysis. Both traditions place a high priority on empirical investigation and rational analysis, but their starting assumptions and modes of observation are profoundly different.

The Scientific Revolution began with the assumption that an external God created the world prior to and independently of human consciousness. Physicists then set themselves the goal of perceiving that objective universe from a “God’s-eye” perspective and formulating its laws in terms of God’s own language, which they thought to be mathematics. Since they were focused on the realm of objective space and its contents that exist independently of consciousness, it was quite natural for them to marginalize the role of mind in nature; and their theories of the true and false vacuums naturally make no reference to consciousness.

Indeed, advocates of this mechanistic view have assumed from the outset that consciousness plays no significant role in the universe. As Antonio Damasio proclaims, “Understanding consciousness says little or nothing about the origins of the universe, the meaning of life, or the likely destiny of both.”17 Such confidence is remarkable in light of the fact that neuroscientists have not yet discovered the nature or origins of consciousness. In the meantime, many neuroscientists share what Damasio calls his “one goal and one hope,” namely to formulate a comprehensive explanation for how the sort of neural patterns that can be currently described with the tools of neurobiology, from molecules to systems, give rise to states of consciousness.18 Such researchers commonly assume that they already know that consciousness has no existence apart from the brain, so the only question to be solved is how the brain produces conscious states.


This assumption is an instance of what historian Daniel Boorstin calls an “illusion of knowledge.” It is these, he proposes, and not mere ignorance, that have historically acted as the greatest impediments to scientific discovery.1914"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Soupie said:
If one accepts that reality is constituted at its most fundamental level of a primal unit -- whose physical property may not even be intrinsic but only relational -- then ultimately there are no discrete objects, just temporarily differentiated systems of this primal unit. So while it appears -- from our macro perspective -- that reality is composed of a multitude of large and small discrete objects, this is an "illusion." Instead, every differentiated system of this primal unit is directly connected to every other differentiated system. For instance, if a person yells, the sound of their yell reaches another persons' ear by way of vibrating air molecules which eventually vibrate the eardrum of another person who may be standing hundreds of yards away. There are other -- perhaps many other -- ways that differentiated physical systems interact via their direct connection.

Moreover, a la Chalmers:
Therefore, not only are the differentiated physical systems directly connected, but so too are any and all differentiated mental systems.

Furthermore, if type-F monism is true, not only are all differentiated physical systems and differentiated mental systems connected to each other, systems of both type are connected to one another. Of course, just how physical and mental systems are related, we aren't sure. Thus the mystery of consciousness and the Hard Problem. But that they are we can be fairly certain.

Now, we can say that minds can affect reality in "mundane" ways such as by directing a physical body to create a physical bomb capable of destroying physical reality.

However, if monism is correct, then it's possible that minds can affect physical reality that is -- from our macro perspective -- distinct from our physical bodies. In short, it's possible that our minds may "radiate" out from our bodies similar* to the way that heat and sound do. Thus, this "radiating" mind may affect others minds (and other non-mind, mental systems**) and they may even affect -- via monism -- other physical systems.

And just as a differentiated physical systems may occasionally give off a loud sound or bright flash, so too might physical systems sometimes emit a "strong" burst of mind that radiates particular far from the body or has a particularly strong effect on the mental and physical systems around it.

* A la the Constitution Problem, we don't know how primal mental units differentiate/combine to create phenomenal experiences and systems such as minds. So, when I say that minds may behave like physical systems, I'm not suggesting they operate via the same mechanisms. However, consider light and sound: they both propagate via waves, but they do so completely differently.

** Just as they are a wonderful multitude of differentiated physical systems ranging from rocks to dolphins, so too there may be a multitude of differentiated mental systems -- not all which may constitute minds. What these systems are or how they may come to be, I don't know, but they might exist. And these systems might not have a simultaneous physical form, or, they may, but it may be extremely faint.
Click to expand...

some similar/compatible ideas here:

http://www.alanwallace.org/Energydynamics.pdf





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tyger said:
@smcder regarding the idea that 'we are god' - it's one of those ideas that when fully explored turns out to be very 'elegant'. A lot of untidy loose ends wind up getting neatly tied up. But as McDermott says in the just linked video above - if creation is deity incarnating itself, when we come in (as a human) it's a complex system we are entering. It's not a simple matter of 'unthinking' it in a nano-second. But the awareness that we are creators of what we see and experience is one of the first steps in a mighty awakening - no doubt about it. Those who are 'mad' may be the explorers.

I like your thoughts regarding 'mission'. Might this be another way of talking about 'destiny'?

What is also significant is that humanity is the latest emergence of deity - we are not the end, or the last.
Click to expand...

some real similarities too with the western occult tradition:

http://alanwallace.org/Is Buddhism Really Nontheistic_.pdf


"As the divine nothingness, which is ontologically prior to the very categories of existence and nonexistence, manifests in the phenomenal world, God comes to recognize himself as the essence of all things. In this way, the whole of creation can be called a theophany, or divine appearance, and nothing could exist apart from that divine nature, for it is the essence of all that is.

Following the Biblical assertion that man is created in the image of God, John declares that the mind of man, like the divine nature, retains its simple unity, as something that cannot be known objectively, in relation to its manifold expressions.15 Just as God comes to know Himself fully only through His self- expression as the phenomenal world, the human mind is fully comprehended only through its outward manifestations, even though it always remains invisible inwardly.

In that way, each human recapitulates within himself the entire dialectic of nothingness and self-creation. Hence John argues that man's inability to objectively know the nature of his own mind marks him as being an image of God, for just as the mind of God does not objectively see itself, so is human consciousness never perceived as an object of the intellect."

"Conclusion

While Buddhism is deemed nontheistic, the Vedas are regarded as polytheistic, and the Bible is monotheistic, we have seen that the cosmogonies of Vajray›na Buddhism, Ved›nta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory.

Moreover, the commonality does not end there, for in the Near East, the writings of Plotinus (205-270) also influenced Islamic and Jewish theories of creation. This apparent unity could be attributed to mere coincidence, or to the historical propagation of a single, speculative, metaphysical theory throughout south Asia and the Near East.

For example, the Upani ̋ads may well have influenced the writings of early Mah›y›na thinkers in India, and they could also have made their way to the Near East, where they might have inspired the writings of Plotinus. On the other hand, Plotinus declared that his theories were based on his own experiential insights, and similar claims have been made by many Buddhist and Ved›ntin contemplatives.

If these cosmogonies are indeed based upon valid introspective knowledge, then there may some plausibility to the claims of many contemplatives throughout the world that introspective inquiry can lead to knowledge, not only of the ultimate ground of being, but of the fundamental laws of nature as well.17"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@smcder Have you listened to the whole of the McDermott videos? Interested in what you make of them in whole and part.

BTW Steiner indicates that 'looking within' will not disclose 'who' one is. To 'know thyself' one must look out side (without) into the world to know oneself. Of course, it requires a certain kind of observation.
 
Tyger said:
@smcder Have you listened to the whole of the McDermott videos? Interested in what you make of them in whole and part.

BTW Steiner indicates that 'looking within' will not disclose 'who' one is. To 'know thyself' one must look out side (without) into the world to know oneself. Of course, it requires a certain kind of observation.
Click to expand...

1 hour 25 min into the first video - just to the q and a session, this talk ended with synchronicity ...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tyger said:
@smcder Have you listened to the whole of the McDermott videos? Interested in what you make of them in whole and part.

BTW Steiner indicates that 'looking within' will not disclose 'who' one is. To 'know thyself' one must look out side (without) into the world to know oneself. Of course, it requires a certain kind of observation.
Click to expand...

I've read that some can reach enlightenment just hearing the dharma ... but meditation is usually required and for the mind to be still enough to meditate one usually needs to follow the ethical teachings (basically so you don't have the agitations of conscience) ... the teachings around "not self" - impermanence of self - usually require a certain level of concentration, a depth for the practitioner to see this truth (see the four jhannas)- because clinging around the self is the most subtle kind of clinging ... Steiner, Gurdjieff and others - seem also to require something other than strictly rational thought - "certain kinds of observation" non ordinary states of mind, or concentration, contemplation - maybe borrowing from eastern traditions (although I also think of the "lateral thinking" craze Edward De Bono years back) and koans ... Buddhism seems to have developed concentration and attention more than any other tradition, albeit always in service of one goal: liberation.

From complex deity meditations to simply following the breath or walking mediation, there are almost unlimited objects of meditation in Buddhism and Hinduism ... and of course the wider occult tradition/magic rely heavily on altered states of consciouness ....

but there is another deep connection with mystic traditions (see the article posted above about Theism and Buddhism) - which is altered states of consciousness and the breath ... the breath spans the conscious and unconscious mind(s)

I noticed my own meditation practice deepening at the same time that I started waking up in the mornings in the middle of deep, blissful breathing ... it was like I had never taken a full breath before in comparison and for a few weeks I was able to tune in to this and continue and deepen it at will - ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Tyger

this was the next part of the talk, about Phil of Freedom as an instruction - intended to slow the reader down ... and then the next lecture which I started this morning - about Steiner and Eastern philosophy - very interesting, thanks for posting this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
smcder said:
@Tyger This was the next part of the talk, about 'Philosophy of Freedom' as an instruction - intended to slow the reader down ... and then the next lecture which I started this morning - about Steiner and Eastern philosophy - very interesting, thanks for posting this.
Click to expand...

*Ahem* - I did some editing of your post :rolleyes: @smcder

A little factoid: when Steiner was asked what aspect of his work would be - not sure of the word - relevant? important? still pertinent? - in 1,000 years, his answer was - the 'Philosophy of Freedom'. This answer stuns many people given the both 'theoretical' and practical aspects of his work in medicine, farming, education, the arts and more.

Yet, the 'Philosophy of Freedom' is key to the 'kind of observation' that is key to Steiner's epistemology. How Steiner elucidates the percept and concept building we do - it is a book that has genuinely 'freed' me in ways mysterious and profound, but it is far from easy for most people who have no experience with reading 'philosophy'. However, it is far from abstract in reality - it is practical - it goes to the core of this process we call thinking, and should be read in conjunction with 'An Outline of Esoteric Science'. In sum, consciousness is explored to great depth in an experiential and accessible way.
 
Tyger said:
*Ahem* - I did some editing of your post :rolleyes: @smcder

A little factoid: when Steiner was asked what aspect of his work would be - not sure of the word - relevant? important? still pertinent? - in 1,000 years, his answer was - the 'Philosophy of Freedom'. This answer stuns many people given the both 'theoretical' and practical aspects of his work in medicine, farming, education, the arts and more.

Yet, the 'Philosophy of Freedom' is key to the 'kind of observation' that is key to Steiner's epistemology. How Steiner elucidates the percept and concept building we do - it is a book that has genuinely 'freed' me in ways mysterious and profound, but it is far from easy for most people who have no experience with reading 'philosophy'. However, it is far from abstract in reality - it is practical - it goes to the core of this process we call thinking, and should be read in conjunction with 'An Outline of Esoteric Science'. In sum, consciousness is explored to great depth in an experiential and accessible way.
Click to expand...

did my phone make a mistake again?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
smcder said:
a good bit of it - auto correct - my fingers are the wrong shape too apparently so I just try to get close
Click to expand...

Auto-correct is a serious problem from my end. My new laptop has it and it has caused more problems than it's worth. It's actually slowed me up because I now have to go back to correct the auto-correct, as well as do a more intense edit-scan at the end of my typing. I kid you not - I'd say it's added a good 5 to 10 minutes onto my typing time depending on how long of an article I am composing. Overall it is not helpful. :mad:
 
Tyger said:
Auto-correct is a serious problem from my end. My new laptop has it and it has caused more problems than it's worth. It's actually slowed me up because I now have to go back to correct the auto-correct, as well as do a more intense edit-scan at the end of my typing. I kid you not - I'd say it's added a good 5 to 10 minutes onto my typing time depending on how long of an article I am composing. Overall it is not helpful. :mad:
Click to expand...

It's not bad on the laptop, older version of Word though

and on the phone, I really do have a time with touchscreen

I've learned to turn the phone into position with my left so that the very top of my right finger is on the key - and still I hit the adjacent key half the time ... I can't find anything on people who have a hard time with touch screens, everything says it works great for everyone! but best I can tell it's the shape of my fingers and maybe lack if flexibility in the wrist?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top