Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Burnt State]

And while I'm no statistician, and the article even spoke to this, the 53% anticipatory erotica stimulus effect does not shake my tail.

I won't put a humorous spin on that comment . . . but I could! ;-) Can you unpack this for me, 53% isn't a sufficient effect size or . . . ? If it's effect size - at least two articles posted on the thread (Utts and Radin) discuss this - I can try to pull out their arguments for discussion.

No, I clearly recognize that the margins from this experiment hold critical features for discussion, as per Utts et. al., and indicate that replicating Bem's precognitive erotic experiment is worthwhile. But as the article later asked, for the benefit of the non-statistician lay folk like me, why are there not more convincing numbers? I was just bemoaning that fact myself.

On occasion I try to construct comments with the intentions of sly smile production as a consequence.

 

[Constance]

I don't want to lose sight of Hansen's Trickster theory in regard to this - but one question I have about his theory is if the liminal, the marginal shifts - he notes that in times of de-structuring, political instability like when the USSR broke up - there is a re-surgence of paranormal phenomena, but the line always seems to be the same, in other words I don't understand him to say that the paranormal topics we discuss today will become mainstream some day and then the margins will be pushed back and we'll have new paranormal topics, a new margin to deal with but these phenomena will behave the same way - rather it seems by his theory the specific paranormal topics, the scope of the paranormal seems perennial. Our relationship to it varies with the structure of society. So he seems to predict that 1) there will be no mainstream academic acceptance and 2) no matter how rigorous the controls and how many replications and how strong the results, it will be rejected - even if this requires alterations in very basic aspects of science . . .

Thanks for that insight into Hansen's thinking, Steve. I don't have time to read him at present and so what you write in this post is particularly helpful. Since I haven't read him, my next comment might be off the mark, but I have a continuing sense from what you've provided in this thread concerning Hansen's trickster theory that my reservations are likely to be valid -- that is, that Hansen and others reify the 'trickster', projecting an objective reality onto this 'figure' that lacks empirical evidence to support it. I suspect that to understand what Jung meant by the 'trickster' we need to be grounded in an understanding of what he meant by the term 'archetype' in general, and that what Jung identified by the term 'archetype' is something more subtle than what Hansen's reported views of the trickster archetype suggest.

I have the impression that the application of the 'the' {as in 'the trickster'} is part of the problem, arising out of the generalizing and reifying tendencies embedded in our language. The same thing occurs in references to "the paranormal." The more we reify 'the paranormal' as a potential 'thing-in- itself' {indeed as a possible region of being entirely separate from our own}, the less we are likely and able to think through the nature and meaning of the empirical evidence presented in para-normal experiences and capacities that take place in the local world we live in (which, significantly, we generally assume to be objectively definable and already understood).

The more productive path, since we don't know what 'the paranormal' is, is to follow Ingo Swann's view that experiences and capabilities we recognize to be para-normal are innate (though suppressed in various cultures and times) and can be understood as extensions of ordinary consciousness toward information available in the collective unconscious and in what parapsychologists refer to as the supraconscious. Ingo refers to these capacities as "superpowers of the biomind" in key writings of his which I'll link to.

Another argument in favor of Ingo's approach is that since we don't know what 'the paranormal' is (in terms of a thinglike substance, essence, region of being, organized activity), we cannot think deductively about it with any concreteness or precision. But we can make progress in comprehending para-normal experience by approaching the subject inductively, accumulating the available evidence for various kinds of experiences and capabilities demonstrated in our species' history concerning which empirical and even veridical evidence exists.

 

[Constance]

And here is where theory becomes vital. I'll resume here from this paragraph in my post above:

I have the impression that the application of the 'the' {as in 'the trickster'} is part of the problem, arising out of the generalizing and reifying tendencies embedded in our language. The same thing occurs in references to "the paranormal." The more we reify 'the paranormal' as a potential 'thing-in- itself' {indeed as a possible region of being entirely separate from our own}, the less we are likely and able to think through the nature and meaning of the empirical evidence presented in para-normal experiences and capacities that take place in the local world we live in (which, significantly, we generally assume to be objectively definable and already understood).

Contemporary science is presently struggling with a paradigm change from reductive materialism/physicalism to a more intricate understanding of how the parts of the world interact and work, locally and nonlocally. Quantum theory over the last hundred years remains irreconcilable with the theory of relativity, a problem that has inspired a great deal of new thinking in science and in the philosophy of science. Chaos theory, systems theory, and information theory are all outgrowths of the effort not just to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, but to discover bridges between the quantum substrate and classical reality (the 'reality' familiar to us) as defined before the quantum revolution. A paper by one such physicist, Wojciech Zurek, linked below, is an example of one of the major ongoing theoretical efforts/projects in physical theory; I recommend reading enough of it to gain a sense of the scope and type of scientific thinking proceeding at the theoretical level, and will attach a few more later. The interdisciplinary field called Endophysics is another development of recent years, and the abstracts of its third international conference (which I linked yesterday) point to the new engagement of scientists and other thinkers with subjectivity (and more generally 'observer' activity) in understanding processes in nature.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0308163

The approaches I've referred to briefly above lead me to reject Hansen's predictions that 'the paranormal' and 'the trickster' are permanent endemic obstacles to our one day understanding the nature of being more fully than we do now.

 

[Constance]

. . .I clearly recognize that the margins from this experiment hold critical features for discussion, as per Utts et. al., and indicate that replicating Bem's precognitive erotic experiment is worthwhile. But as the article later asked, for the benefit of the non-statistician lay folk like me, why are there not more convincing numbers? I was just bemoaning that fact myself.

Actually, 3 percent above the average expected is a very significant effect when it turns up in thousands upon thousands of experiments using random collections of university students as subjects. See Jahn and Dunne's reporting on many years of running RNG experiments at PEAR and elsewhere.

During these experiments they have observed some of the subjects interacting with the RNGs to demonstrate considerable ability to influence the machines' behavior. I don't know whether they've singled out such subjects for other kinds of paranormal experimentation. They might have, or referred them to other paranormal investigators and experimenters, and some of those students might have been interested in pursuing tests of their personal mind over matter capabilities or aptitudes in psi in general. Of course Bem's experiments should be repeated elsewhere, as much as possible, to see whether results concerning precognition occur over large populations as in Jahn's experiments.

These large runs of experiments with random subjects using statistics to measure effects have been adopted to make parapsychology a better fit with the statistical models of science in general. The effects are there and large enough to merit the admission of parapsychology departments to most major universities. Unfortunately, the government grants that fund most academic science are managed by people who either do not yet understand the significance of this field or are marching, in their grant-giving decisions, to the tune of the DoD and military-industrial complex, which have little interest in exploring reality beyond the geopolitical reality of this planet and the desire to continue to control it.

 

[smcder]

No, I clearly recognize that the margins from this experiment hold critical features for discussion, as per Utts et. al., and indicate that replicating Bem's precognitive erotic experiment is worthwhile. But as the article later asked, for the benefit of the non-statistician lay folk like me, why are there not more convincing numbers? I was just bemoaning that fact myself.

On occasion I try to construct comments with the intentions of sly smile production as a consequence.

OK, make sure I am on the same page, you are talking about this article?

h+ Magazine | Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways.

and the section entitled: If Psi Exists, Why Aren’t the Observed Effects Stronger?

You may wonder why the results of Bem’s experiments weren’t stronger. Why only 53%, why not 95%?

He gives some explanations for this . . . about falling in love and then I think about batting averages or Tiger Woods' percentage of wins or picking stocks or other complicated human activities - . . . consider roulette, how long before large men would be encouraging you to leave the casino if you won 53% of the time . . . ? this is what happens in the "field" versus the "lab"and I think ordinary psychology is replete with similar examples . . . even simple perception (seeing) is often inaccurate - look at witness reports to crimes, incredibly unreliable - I witnessed a car accident and answered some questions from the insurance company later - then I went back to the scene and found I had not answered any of the questions correctly, so if Psi is a complex phenomena, what percentage effect size would you think is reasonable? We could do some searches for comparable things, making some assumptions about Psi of course . . .

And there is this from Utts' response to Hyman:

As I have repeatedly tried to explain to Professor Hyman and others, when dealing with a small to medium effect it takes hundreds or sometimes thousands of trials to establish "statistical significance." In fact, the Physicians Health Study that initially established the link between taking aspirin and reducing heart attacks studied over 22,000 men. Had it been conducted on only 2,200 men with the same reduction in heart attacks, it would not have achieved statistical significance. Should students be required to recruit 22,000 participants and conduct such an experiment before we believe the connection between aspirin and heart attacks is real?

see if any of this is convincing or re-assuring or if there remains some sense that something is still missing . . . ?

 

[Randall]

I'm perfectly willing to accept that strange things happen, including psychic phenomena. I don't need a statistical evaluation. IMO we're getting sidetracked by the statistical game and would like to see more focus on identifying the causal factors. The assumption is that psychic phenomena are an innate human ability. What if that's not the case?

 

[Tyger]

I'm perfectly willing to accept that strange things happen, including psychic phenomena. I don't need a statistical evaluation. IMO we're getting sidetracked by the statistical game and would like to see more focus on identifying the causal factors. The assumption is that psychic phenomena are an innate human ability. What if that's not the case?

People are following topics that interest them on the thread - for some that means statistics (and there are good reasons to be so interested), for you it means another tack, so.....

What if? Lay out your case - your thoughts. Build a case. Do some reading.

 

[Randall]

People are following topics that interest them on the thread - for some that means statistics (and there are good reasons to be so interested), for you it means another tack, so.....

What if? Lay out your case - your thoughts. Build a case. Do some reading.

Fair enough. I've been exposed to a lot of the mainstream pop-culture in books and videos that touch on every aspect of what has been discussed here so far. For me the most convincing evidence aren't statistics, but personal accounts that seem far more definitive than a bunch of random samples. Here's one I recall from 2004 that I found interesting:

Redmond Teenager Survives 8 Days Stuck in Car Wreck ( Reported Monday, October 11, 2004 )

A Redmond teenager, missing for eight days, was found alive yesterday at the bottom of a woodsy ravine by a member of her church who said a vision led her to the girl ... Nohr, who belongs to an online prayer group for women, said she had several vivid dreams of a wooded area. In the dreams, she said, she heard the message "Keep going. Keep going." Yesterday morning, Nohr said, she woke up and felt an urgency to look for Hatch. She asked her daughter to go along. They drove to the Union Hill area and pulled over. Nohr said she got out, but "it just didn't feel right."

So the two drove farther and stopped again in about the 20200 block of Northeast Union Hill Road. All the while, Nohr said, she prayed. "I just thought, 'Let her speak out to us.' " At one spot, Nohr said she felt something draw her down a steep embankment. Her daughter waited up on the road while Nohr scrambled over a concrete barrier and inched her way more than 100 feet down through thick vegetation. At the bottom, Nohr said, she saw nothing at first. She was about to leave, thinking she was wrong, when through the trees, she said, she saw what looked like a car. It was Hatch's, crumpled so badly that it looked like "modern art," said Randy Phillips, the family's pastor."

Complete article here: The Seattle Times: Local News: Redmond teenager survives 8 days stuck in car wreck
​

In the example above, the woman experienced what could fairly be called a psychic phenomena in the form of dream-visions. Additionally the woman was part of a prayer group, and prayers are essentially telepathic requests to what people believe is God. So here we have a situation where a psychic process was thought to have been used to elicit help from an unseen mystical third party with the power to influence the situation, and arising out of this situation, some sort of feedback seems to have followed which appears to have been a key factor in finding the missing girl. So looking at this situation without the religious filter, it seems fair to ask: What is this mystical third party entity?

 

[Tyger]

From your post it sounds like you think you know what it isn't. In some respects you are doing what some Anthropologists have done in the past - explain/dismiss/edit what the participants in an event think about what they are doing, and supply an overlay of interpretation that is really the Anthropologist's cultural/societal/philosophical biases.

So looking at this situation without the religious filter, it seems fair to ask: What is this mystical third party entity?

I don't know.

You have defined the parameters and set up the question, so, if it is not 'God' (to you a 'religious filter' - though it is not actually known what the praying people thought they were doing - or if they all shared the same idea about what they were doing), what do you think is going on? What is the 'mystical third party'? And in this instance - given I know that you do not like 'mystical' stuff - what do you mean by 'mystical'? And why do you think there is a 'mystical third party'?

 

[Tyger]

I'm perfectly willing to accept that strange things happen, including psychic phenomena. I don't need a statistical evaluation. IMO we're getting sidetracked by the statistical game and would like to see more focus on identifying the causal factors. The assumption is that psychic phenomena are an innate human ability. What if that's not the case?

If it is not an innate human ability - what is it?

 

[Constance]

In the example above, the woman experienced what could fairly be called a psychic phenomena in the form of dream-visions. Additionally the woman was part of a prayer group, and prayers are essentially telepathic requests to what people believe is God. So here we have a situation where a psychic process was thought to have been used to elicit help from an unseen mystical third party with the power to influence the situation, and arising out of this situation, some sort of feedback seems to have followed which appears to have been a key factor in finding the missing girl. So looking at this situation without the religious filter, it seems fair to ask: What is this mystical third party entity?

As Tyger asked, why assume there is 'a mystical third party' involved?

There was a sequence of paranormal events that led up to this rescue. The members of the online prayer group and their sustained, prayerful, communal intentions on behalf of the girl might have triggered sufficient (1) openness to subconscious or collective unconscious information in the woman who then experienced the (2) precognitive dreams, which motivated her to attempt to find this girl. The day of the rescue the woman woke with (3) an impelling feeling that she could find her and must try to do so, and she followed the guidance of a sequence of apparently (4) supraliminal influences that in fact guided her within hours precisely to the girl's location. How magnificent.

Our species history, today and deep into the past, is filled with experiences such as this one. The rescuer's mind worked like the minds of naturally gifted psychics and skilled remote viewers, who learn how to subdue active consciousness to enable the subconscious mind to access information embedded in the entangled mind and matter that constitute the world we live in.

For all we know, the universe might have been designed to work this way, in which case the 'mystical third party' you suggest would be God.

 

[Constance]

Here is a link to the section of Ingo Swann's website concerning human biomind superpowers and remote viewing.

Ingo Swann Database

 

[smcder]

Thanks for that insight into Hansen's thinking, Steve. I don't have time to read him at present and so what you write in this post is particularly helpful. Since I haven't read him, my next comment might be off the mark, but I have a continuing sense from what you've provided in this thread concerning Hansen's trickster theory that my reservations are likely to be valid -- that is, that Hansen and others reify the 'trickster', projecting an objective reality onto this 'figure' that lacks empirical evidence to support it. I suspect that to understand what Jung meant by the 'trickster' we need to be grounded in an understanding of what he meant by the term 'archetype' in general, and that what Jung identified by the term 'archetype' is something more subtle than what Hansen's reported views of the trickster archetype suggest.

. . .

there's a lot here - I would say to hold judgement on Hansen until you can read his book - was there something specific I said that leads to this or just a general sense? Was it the transcript from a radio interview I posted above that has Hansen answered the reality/ontological status of the trickster - ? I do think Hansen's theory is more subtle than the meme the Trickster has become and applies more narrowly - I think, in terms of knowledge, he doesn't necessarily say what we can know but rather he looks at what happens on the borders of what we do know (at any given time) so that may be why Radin made the comments he did - remember too Radin was responding to a critique by Hansen. But I don't see Hansen as anti-science, I believe he did research himself and he said of Radin's work that he thinks it is very important. He was more speaking of how it would be dealt with by society as a liminal subject.

 

[smcder]

And here is where theory becomes vital. I'll resume here from this paragraph in my post above:



Contemporary science is presently struggling with a paradigm change from reductive materialism/physicalism to a more intricate understanding of how the parts of the world interact and work, locally and nonlocally. Quantum theory over the last hundred years remains irreconcilable with the theory of relativity, a problem that has inspired a great deal of new thinking in science and in the philosophy of science. Chaos theory, systems theory, and information theory are all outgrowths of the effort not just to reconcile relativity with quantu . . .

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0308163

The approaches I've referred to briefly above lead me to reject Hansen's predictions that 'the paranormal' and 'the trickster' are permanent endemic obstacles to our one day understanding the nature of being more fully than we do now.

I'd have to read Hansen again, but I don't think this is right:

The approaches I've referred to briefly above lead me to reject Hansen's predictions that 'the paranormal' and 'the trickster' are permanent endemic obstacles to our one day understanding the nature of being more fully than we do now.

Say we do come up with a theory of telepathy say based on quantum mechanics and ESP moves into the mainstream of science (and look at how Radin says this will be dealt with - it will be as if everyone knew it all along - . . . there is an interesting bit I heard about Dawkins on this too) , anyway I don't think Hansen says that can never happen - but then there would still be a lot of topics on the fringe or in the "paranormal" (exactly as you say this word is used) and Hansen would say those topics would still be dealt with the same way, that the Trickster would be at play in those areas -and not only that but if we do so extend our knowledge into new areas, then new areas on the fringe would open up (shifting border idea) and these new mysteries and fringe areas . . . would be subject to the Trickster and so on and on as we extend our knowledge, so Hansen's theory works at the areas betwixt and between chaos and order knowledge and ignorance,areas that will always exist - but it doesn't say specifically what we can and can't know . . .

 

[smcder]

And here is where theory becomes vital. I'll resume here from this paragraph in my post above:



Contemporary science is presently struggling with a paradigm change from reductive materialism/physicalism to a more intricate understanding of how the parts of the world interact and work, locally and nonlocally. Quantum theory over the last hundred years remains irreconcilable with the theory of relativity, a problem that has inspired a great deal of new thinking in science and in the philosophy of science. Chaos theory, systems theory, and information theory are all outgrowths of the effort not just to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, but to discover bridges between the quantum substrate and classical reality (the 'reality' familiar to us) as defined before the quantum revolution. A paper by one such physicist, Wojciech Zurek, linked below, is an example of one of the major ongoing theoretical efforts/projects in physical theory; I recommend reading enough of it to gain a sense of the scope and type of scientific thinking proceeding at the theoretical level, and will attach a few more later. The interdisciplinary field called Endophysics is another development of recent years, and the abstracts of its third international conference (which I linked yesterday) point to the new engagement of scientists and other thinkers with subjectivity (and more generally 'observer' activity) in understanding processes in nature.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0308163

The approaches I've referred to briefly above lead me to reject Hansen's predictions that 'the paranormal' and 'the trickster' are permanent endemic obstacles to our one day understanding the nature of being more fully than we do now.

There's a lot here on language and reification that's important too - some things similar to what I'm trying to wrap my mind around - maybe answers some questions for me, so I don't want to let this slip by, it's just not well formed in my mind at this moment . . .

Ok, so I said why I think that Hansen wouldn't predict that:

'the paranormal' and 'the trickster' are permanent endemic obstacles to our one day understanding the nature of being more fully than we do now.

but rather would say we will always have liminal areas and the Trickster will always show up there - (and I could be totally wrong with this interpretation of Hansen, it's just based on the best I can remember) but the other thing is that there seems to be more here in your question, an underlying concern - so would even this interpretation pose a difficulty for you? Maybe the simplest place to start is to ask whether in an interconnected cosmology, a holistic cosmology would there be no boundaries and so no room for the Trickster? There would theoretically be no limits on knowledge?

 

[smcder]

I'm perfectly willing to accept that strange things happen, including psychic phenomena. I don't need a statistical evaluation. IMO we're getting sidetracked by the statistical game and would like to see more focus on identifying the causal factors. The assumption is that psychic phenomena are an innate human ability. What if that's not the case?

Sure we can have multiple streams going . . . I'm trying to hash out the statistical part with Burnt State, I have questions/concerns too - this is important to me because it's basic to the studies I'm reading.

 

[Tyger]

Excuse me. Was I talking to you?

And your rationale for such rudeness and hostility? Being 'snippy' as you accused someone else?

 

[Tyger]

Fair enough. I've been exposed to a lot of the mainstream pop-culture in books and videos that touch on every aspect of what has been discussed here so far.

Are you equating what has been discussed here to 'mainstream pop-culture in books and videos' that you have read? If so, you are simply not getting what Constance and Steve are sharing. Far from 'mainstream pop-culture'. As I have often commented, your choice of YouTube videos suggests you are woefully misinformed, as well as prone to being victim to gross distortions. [I can give you example of that, if you wish.] It would be to your advantage to start reading primary sources. Get immersed in some real science.

For me the most convincing evidence aren't statistics, but personal accounts that seem far more definitive than a bunch of random samples.

What happened to your insistence on scientific rigor? Repeatability? Statistical analysis is relevant to that. Personal anecdotes are always interesting but far from 'definitive' - except en masse.

 

[smcder]

Thanks for that insight into Hansen's thinking, Steve. I don't have time to read him at present and so what you write in this post is particularly helpful. Since I haven't read him, my next comment might be off the mark, but I have a continuing sense from what you've provided in this thread concerning Hansen's trickster theory that my reservations are likely to be valid -- that is, that Hansen and others reify the 'trickster', projecting an objective reality onto this 'figure' that lacks empirical evidence to support it. I suspect that to understand what Jung meant by the 'trickster' we need to be grounded in an understanding of what he meant by the term 'archetype' in general, and that what Jung identified by the term 'archetype' is something more subtle than what Hansen's reported views of the trickster archetype suggest.

I have the impression that the application of the 'the' {as in 'the trickster'} is part of the problem, arising out of the generalizing and reifying tendencies embedded in our language. The same thing occurs in references to "the paranormal." The more we reify 'the paranormal' as a potential 'thing-in- itself' {indeed as a possible region of being entirely separate from our own}, the less we are likely and able to think through the nature and meaning of the empirical evidence presented in para-normal experiences and capacities that take place in the local world we live in (which, significantly, we generally assume to be objectively definable and already understood).

The more productive path, since we don't know what 'the paranormal' is, is to follow Ingo Swann's view that experiences and capabilities we recognize to be para-normal are innate (though suppressed in various cultures and times) and can be understood as extensions of ordinary consciousness toward information available in the collective unconscious and in what parapsychologists refer to as the supraconscious. Ingo refers to these capacities as "superpowers of the biomind" in key writings of his which I'll link to.

Another argument in favor of Ingo's approach is that since we don't know what 'the paranormal' is (in terms of a thinglike substance, essence, region of being, organized activity), we cannot think deductively about it with any concreteness or precision. But we can make progress in comprehending para-normal experience by approaching the subject inductively, accumulating the available evidence for various kinds of experiences and capabilities demonstrated in our species' history concerning which empirical and even veridical evidence exists.

that is, that Hansen and others reify the 'trickster', projecting an objective reality onto this 'figure' that lacks empirical evidence to support it. I suspect that to understand what Jung meant by the 'trickster' we need to be grounded in an understanding of what he meant by the term 'archetype' in general, and that what Jung identified by the term 'archetype' is something more subtle than what Hansen's reported views of the trickster archetype suggest.

See if this answers your concern about how Hansen sees the Trickster:

Afterlife FM - George P. Hansen : Afterlife FM : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive (at 15:25 into the interview where Hansen responds to this question from Michael Prescott about the "ontological status" of the trickster)

Prescott:

"How real is the trickster? Are we supposed to think of the trickster as a metaphor or are we supposed to think of it as an actual entity or force in the universe?"

Hansen:

". . . you should think about it both ways, the trickster cannot easily be categorized, in fact the trickster is known to subvert categories and to blur boundaries, that's its nature. Its nature, especially in our western world view, is very difficult to grasp. Certainly its a metaphor but the world works in certain archetypal ways, there are these larger patterns - the trickster archetype,the constellation of characteristics of the trickster tend to operate together and manifest together. So yes its metaphor but yes the world, the universe is built so these characteristics tend to cluster together and you can say: "there is trickster " it can be a very abstract way of thinking and it can be very concrete"

So I'm not getting from this that Hansen is reifying the Trickster or am I missing something . . . do you still see this from his response above?

I'd be out of my depth to discuss Jung, but I have a little familiarity, I know he talked of the psychoid and of autonomous psychic constellations - I found this:

Jungian archetypes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was this psychoid aspect of the archetype that so impressed Nobel laureate physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Embracing Jung's concept, Pauli believed that the archetype provided a link between physical events and the mind of the scientist who studied them. In doing so he echoed the position adopted by German astronomer Johannes Kepler. Thus the archetypes which ordered our perceptions and ideas are themselves the product of an objective order which transcends both the human mind and the external world.[2]

That to me seems very similar to what Hansen says above:

So yes its metaphor but yes the world, the universe is built so these characteristics tend to cluster together and you can say: "there is trickster " it can be a very abstract way of thinking and it can be very concrete"

 

[Tyger]

Perhaps I should answer by paraphrasing one of your quotes: "If you seriously are asking this question then it is clear you have not been able to follow the discussion."

Ufology, Steve's link to the Radiolab podcast was obviously related to the content of this thread. If that wasn't clear to you then indicating why you saw it that way would have been helpful. Requiring someone to state the obvious is time-consuming for the person having to answer.