Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Constance]

No, Randall, you've just crashed again into the wall of willful ignorance and consequent prejudice that keeps you from reading the physicists involved in quantum consciousness and quantum information research. Hagelin is far from the only one of these scientists. As usual you are satisfied to cite a pop culture film and quote one or two individuals whose prejudices are as evident (indeed as embarrassingly obvious) as yours are, as if that's enough to demolish an entire field of professional scientific inquiry. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands. Why not spend some of it trying to catch up on science that is moving beyond the dying materialist/objectivist paradigm you cling to?

 

[smcder]

Excellent.

Also excellent.

Uh oh ... here it comes ...

And you think I'm predictable . But seriously, what does any of the real science he's done have to with consciousness and the paranormal ( the topic of this thread )? Let's consider these other quotes from the Wikipedia article ( bolded parts mine ):

"In a 1992 news article for Nature about Hagelin's first presidential campaign, Anderson wrote that Hagelin, was 'by all accounts a gifted researcher well known and respected by his colleagues' but that his effort to link grand unified theories of physics to Transcendental Meditation "infuriates his former collaborators." He cited physicist John Ellis' fear that 'people might regard [Hagelin's assertions] as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us.'

Fox observed that, while 'once considered a top scientist, Hagelin's former academic peers ostracized him after the candidate attempted to shoehorn Eastern metaphysical musings into the realm of quantum physics.' In his book, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and The Search for Unity In Physical Law, Woit acknowledged that Hagelin had published papers in prestigious journals that would eventually be cited in over a hundred other papers, but that identification of a unified field of consciousness with a unified field of superstring theory was wishful thinking and that most physicists thought Hagelin's views on this topic were nonsense."
​

And so another otherwise brilliant mind appears to have crashed into the swamp of quantum woo.

Being predictable isn't a bad thing. Neither is being slow to form an opinion.

Folks are free to check it out for themselves and I hope they will share their thinking on this thread.

Right now we have little to work with from the material you quote to get to your conclusion:

And so another otherwise brilliant mind appears to have crashed into the swamp of quantum woo.

Let me emphasize that my issue isn't with your conclusion, as we say in these parts: I don't have a dog in the fight, but I would need to see your work.

You cited from Wikipedia (the entire article can be found here: John Hagelin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

"In a 1992 news article for Nature about Hagelin's first presidential campaign, Anderson wrote that Hagelin, was 'by all accounts a gifted researcher well known and respected by his colleagues' but that his effort to link grand unified theories of physics to Transcendental Meditation "infuriates his former collaborators." He cited physicist John Ellis' fear that 'people might regard [Hagelin's assertions] as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us.'

This selection mentions fury, fear and a concern that someone else's purportedly flaky thinking will some how rub off on a theory or on to other people - all strong emotional reactions. But nothing is said about why they are infuriated and afraid. Can you develop this more?

Fox observed that, while 'once considered a top scientist, Hagelin's former academic peers ostracized him after the candidate attempted to shoehorn Eastern metaphysical musings into the realm of quantum physics.' In his book, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and The Search for Unity In Physical Law, Woit acknowledged that Hagelin had published papers in prestigious journals that would eventually be cited in over a hundred other papers, but that identification of a unified field of consciousness with a unified field of superstring theory was wishful thinking and that most physicists thought Hagelin's views on this topic were nonsense."

So this is a reference to a purported consensus among experts - but that isn't infallible. In fact, if Kuhn is right - at some point consensus always fails and things move into a new paradigm. This may mean that being labelled nonsense is part of the birth-pangs of most new theories.

Here is an illustration:

Continental drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Attenborough, who attended university in the second half of the 1940s, recounted an incident illustrating its lack of acceptance then: "I once asked one of my lecturers why he was not talking to us about continental drift and I was told, sneeringly, that if I could I prove there was a force that could move continents, then he might think about it. The idea was moonshine, I was informed."[24]

Moonshine here means roughly the same as "quantum woo" I believe? Also, I'm not sure I've seen your definition for the term quantum mysticism.

It seems many aspects of quantum mechanics remain in dispute? For example:

[1301.1069] A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics

Foundational investigations in quantum mechanics, both experimental and theoretical, gave birth to the field of quantum information science. Nevertheless, the foundations of quantum mechanics themselves remain hotly debated in the scientific community, and no consensus on essential questions has been reached. Here, we present the results of a poll carried out among 33 participants of a conference on the foundations of quantum mechanics. The participants completed a questionnaire containing 16 multiple-choice questions probing opinions on quantum-foundational issues. Participants included physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians. We describe our findings, identify commonly held views, and determine strong, medium, and weak correlations between the answers. Our study provides a unique snapshot of current views in the field of quantum foundations, as well as an analysis of the relationships between these views.

Is the role of consciousness in QM (or lack there of) a settled issue or is it perhaps not considered an essential question?

And Constance has introduced a lot of material about the possible role consciousness may play in quantum mechanics.

Obviously making this comparison to a previous theory doesn't prove the current one is true - but, in order to justify your conclusion:

And so another otherwise brilliant mind appears to have crashed into the swamp of quantum woo.

what is needed is a specific critique of how a unified field of consciousness is not identifiable or compatible with a unified field theory of superstring theory. Or more generally that consciousness is not involved in quantum processes (and maybe vice-versa?) (@Constance - are there other questions you feel need to be answered at this point?)

Can you provide this specific critique?

Also, you say ". . . another otherwise brilliant mind . . . " indicating that perhaps several researchers of Hagelin's stature are in the "swamp" with him. If true, that is an interesting thing too, isn't it? It's been years, but I know John Wheeler's ideas were controversial, also the mathematician Roger Penrose has some theories about consciousness and micro-tubules in the brain and then back to its earliest roots, Pauli and Jung had an interesting collaboration and if I remember, many of the members of the Manhattan Project were familiar with Eastern literature and ideas.

"But seriously, what does any of the real science he's done have to with consciousness and the paranormal ( the topic of this thread )?"

That's exactly the question. Questions about the relationship of consciousness and quantum mechanics easily fit into this thread and remember that Tyger built quite a bit of lee-way into this thread at its creation:

No 'rules' or constraints to this thread except good-will in the spirit of classic intellectual debate - which means it will likely be pretty free-ranging, with many 'threads' of thought being pursued simultaneously - part of the fun of such discussions.

 

[smcder]

Hitting the nail squarely on the head, trained observer: "through artificiality, we have begun the long slow slide from vitality, to static existence, to choking in our own shit?"

The "vaulted dreams of transcendence" arising from "artificiality" are nightmares, and some of the original engineers of AI have recognized that that way lies madness. I posted some links to Bill Joy and other insider critics of the AI project on my facebook page a half-year ago and will try to recapture them and post those links here.

Is Why The Future Doesn't Need Us among them?

Wired 8.04: Why the future doesn't need us.

Kurzweil and Moravec and Kaczynski . . . oh my! ;-)

George Dyson warns: "In the game of life and evolution there are three players at the table: human beings, nature, and machines. I am firmly on the side of nature. But nature, I suspect, is on the side of the machines."

 

[smcder]

Reality check. What I actually did was review the article cited and quote what someone else is reported to have said within the same article that is relevant to this thread's subject matter, and then based on that information, commented on how that appears, which means my comment was supported by an independent example, not prejudice. I even attended the public showing of the movie What The Bleep Do We Know, which features the scientist in question, and then looked more closely at the claims made in that film from both perspectives by also reviewing a debunking of it. Can you say you've done the same?

In contrast, you've simply reverted to more unsubstantiated criticism backed by mere proclamation. Therefore it appears that if there were any case to be made for who is actually being wilfully ignorant here, it's you. In the meantime, just to impress that point, I'm open to reviewing any substantial and relevant evidence related to the subject we're discussing, so back off on the accusations of prejudice and instead provide some substantial and relevant evidence to support your claims and beliefs.

I'm open to reviewing any substantial and relevant evidence related to the subject we're discussing,

I went back to page 30 of this thread to collect the links Constance has provided, here is the list I have with some of my notes, but see her posts for exact context:

p. 30
Atmanspacher on Pauli and Jung
The Pauli-Jung Conjecture: And Its Impact Today
The Pauli-Jung Conjecture: And Its Impact Today: Harald Atmanspacher, Christopher A. Fuchs: 9781845406684: Books - Amazon.ca

Dual-Aspect Monism a la Pauli and Jung:
http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/dualaspect.pdf
Abstract
Dual-aspect monism and neutral monism offer interesting alternatives to mainstream positions concerning the mind-matter problem. Both assume a domain underlying the mind-matter distinction, but they also differ in definitive ways. In the 20th century, variants of both positions have been advanced by a number of protagonists. One of these variants,
the dual-aspect monism due to Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Gustav Jung, will be described and commented on in detail. As a unique feature in the Pauli-Jung conception, the duality of mental and material aspects is specified in terms of a complementarity. This sounds innocent, but entails a number of peculiarities distinguishing their conjecture from other
approaches.

Spirituality and the Paranormal: Scientific Papers by J.E. Kennedy
Jim Kennedy
Research on Spirituality and Paranormal Phenomena

This site contains scientific articles on spirituality and parapsychology. The sequence of these articles tells the story of how my thinking on these topics has evolved. The articles that I think are most relevant are marked with an *.

The articles are listed below in the following categories:

• 
  
  
  • The Relationship between Spirituality and Paranormal Phenomena
  • Properties of Psi that are Problematic for Research
  • Methodological Issues in Parapsychology
  • Parapsychological Experiments (older articles)
  • Information Processing in Psychic Phenomena (older articles)

Stephen Braude
111. Parapsychology Researcher Dr. Stephen Braude Battles Against “Sleazy Arguments” | Skeptiko - Science at the Tipping Point
111. PARAPSYCHOLOGY RESEARCHER DR. STEPHEN BRAUDE BATTLES AGAINST “SLEAZY ARGUMENTS”
POSTED ON AUG 17, 2010 IN PARAPSYCHOLOGY | 44 COMMENTS

smcder: this is from the Skeptiko podcast, I remember this interview. The host can be abrasive at times and perhaps even dogmatic on his views, but he does a good job and can ask the tough questions - as evidenced by his recent podcast on Global Warming (Alex is a bit skeptical) in which he takes Rick Archer to task on his views, Rick is the host of Buddha At the Gas Pump - who interviews John Hagelin in the link I provide above.

Interview with Dr. Stephen Braude reveals challenges and opportunities of controversial psi research into mediumship and psychokinesis.
Research into controversial topics like psychic mediums is tough, but some researchers find it’s made even tougher when skeptics favor the weakest cases over the strongest.
Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for and interview with Professor of Philosophy and psi researcher, Dr. Stephen Braude.
During the interview Dr. Braude recounts his entree into psi research, “… there was all this other stuff that had been happening outside the lab from séances and anecdotal reports and I figured if I was an honest intellect I at least needed to become acquainted with it before I rejected it summarily. So I first studied the evidence for large-scale, and physical mediumship in particular. That was a momentous event because the evidence blew me away… I discovered that the evidence was much cleaner than people made it out to be.”

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_23_2_braude_2.pdf
Abstract
Critics of survival research often claim that the survival hypothesis is conceptually problematic at best, and literally incoherent at worst. The guiding intuition behind their skepticism is that there’s an essential link between the concept of a person (or personality or experience) and physical embodiment. Thus (they argue), since by hypothesis postmortem individuals such as ostensible mediumistic communicators have no physical body, there’s something wrong with the very idea of a postmortem person, personality or experience. However, critics can’t simply beg the question and assert that physical embodiment isessential to personhood, personality, or experience, because the evidence suggesting survival is a prima facie challenge to the contrary. On the other hand, defenders of ostensible mediumistic communication need to explain how postmortem awareness and knowledge of the current physical world can occur without a physical body that experiences the world and represents it accurately enough to ground veridical postmortem reports. This paper will first consider why survivalists face potentially serious problems in trying to make sense of apparent postmortem perception. Then it will consider a plausible—and arguably the only—way to deal with the issues. However, that solution turns out to be a double-edged sword. Ironically, the best way to deal with the problem of perspectival postmortem awareness may render the survival hypothesis gratuitous.

John Hagelin

Manual for a Perfect Government: John Hagelin: 9780923569228: Books - Amazon.ca

http://istpp.org/pdf/Shift-PoweroftheCollective.pdf

(. . . excerpted, abridged, and edited from a talk given by Dr. Hagelin in Holland and videocast at an IONS regional conference on February 18, 2007, in Tucson, Arizona.)

We're living in an epidemic of stress. Doctors report an alarming rise of stroke,
hypertension, and heart disease—now called metabolic syndrome—all of which are diseases of stress. As a result,we would expect to see stressed behavior in society, and it turns out there is plenty of it: crime, domestic violence, terrorism, and war. Since meditation provides an effective, scientifically proven way to dissolve individual stress, and if society is composed of individuals, then it seems like common sense to use meditation to similarly defuse societal stress. A reduction in crime and stress-related behavior would then be expected to follow.

Nobody would have ever guessed—I wouldn’t have guessed—the extraordinary degree to which you can reduce social violence through meditation, because it doesn’t take
everyone meditating to generate profound effects. A relatively small number of people meditating together has a powerful spillover effect, reducing stress throughout a surrounding area in a measurable way. That’s the phenomenon I want to focus on. That’s where the really interesting physics and metaphysics can be found.

Although this isn't the video referenced above, it seems to be very closely related:

 

[smcder]

Excellent.

Also excellent.

Uh oh ... here it comes ...

And you think I'm predictable . But seriously, what does any of the real science he's done have to with consciousness and the paranormal ( the topic of this thread )? Let's consider these other quotes from the Wikipedia article ( bolded parts mine ):

"In a 1992 news article for Nature about Hagelin's first presidential campaign, Anderson wrote that Hagelin, was 'by all accounts a gifted researcher well known and respected by his colleagues' but that his effort to link grand unified theories of physics to Transcendental Meditation "infuriates his former collaborators." He cited physicist John Ellis' fear that 'people might regard [Hagelin's assertions] as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us.'

Fox observed that, while 'once considered a top scientist, Hagelin's former academic peers ostracized him after the candidate attempted to shoehorn Eastern metaphysical musings into the realm of quantum physics.' In his book, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and The Search for Unity In Physical Law, Woit acknowledged that Hagelin had published papers in prestigious journals that would eventually be cited in over a hundred other papers, but that identification of a unified field of consciousness with a unified field of superstring theory was wishful thinking and that most physicists thought Hagelin's views on this topic were nonsense."
​

And so another otherwise brilliant mind appears to have crashed into the swamp of quantum woo.

a couple of other thoughts come to mind after listening to the first part of the interview (see my post in response to Constance for more detail)

the first quote is from 1992, Hagelin has a chance to respond to how his ideas are currently perceived and secondly the quote:

that identification of a unified field of consciousness with a unified field of superstring theory was wishful thinking and that most physicists thought Hagelin's views on this topic were nonsense."

may be misleading, because the relevant question would be what do most theoretical physicists, theoretical cosmologists (and perhaps even you have to go into a sub-specialty here) think of Hagelin's views? To say most physicists is pretty vague. Hagelin also discusses the acceptance of his ideas in the interview . . .

another thought is the discussion of multiple universes which I hear around a lot in popular discourse and which may just be woo too - I don't know, but Hagelin has some fascinating thoughts in response to this idea, so is this fairly well accepted among physicists - the idea of multiple universes, if so - it seems like a very strange idea and perhaps even more strange that is a popular idea among both laypersons and physicists (if it in fact, is), whole universes bubbling up and disappearing . . . until you step back and think that there also seems to be a strong motivation for this theory because then you can avoid introducing teleology or intelligence or even consciousness into the process . . . but you have to have an infinite number of universes to do so - if I understand it correctly . . .

 

[Constance]

Steve, you asked me whether there are other questions that I feel need to be answered at this point. I think what we need to do, since we here are far from answers, is to pursue an understanding of the major scientific developments in systems theory, information theory, and complexity theory and also recognize the major foundational insights of Maturana and Varela concerning what they understood as 'protoconsciousness'

The first video on this page is instructive concerning protoconsciousness and complexity theory.

Consciousness Interviews on Vimeo

 

[Constance]

Re: 'transhumanism' and a post-human earthworld, the following article by Bill Joy covers all the bases and sounds the needed alarms. We need to listen to what he has to say, especially given his extraordinary understanding of the issues. Steve asked whether this was one of the sources I'd read and posted elsewhere earlier this year. Yes it was and it's critically important:

Wired 8.04: Why the future doesn't need us.
www.wired.com
Our most powerful 21st-century technologies - robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech - are threatening to make humans an endangered species.


The following paper provides an overview of the political philosophies in conflict with one another concerning 'transhumanism' and the experimentation already in progress toward its realization. As the author observes: "The transhumanist perspective is indeed under attack by much better organized opponents, and the transhumanists are partly to blame. The ideologically narrow, apolitical, sectarian ahistoricality of most transhumanists is striking . . . ." The Politics of Transhumanism

• 
  The Politics of Transhumanism
  www.changesurfer.com
  Originally Presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of ScienceCambridge, MA November 1-4, 2001
  
  An interesting paper on Derrida's response to posthuman apocalypse: The Latecoming of the Posthuman
  

 

[Constance]

A good place to begin concerning the key biological, informational, and systems theory contributions of Maturana and Varela and the enactive embodied cognition theory of consciousness developed from them ~~~

Tutorial 1: Introductory Orientation

 

[Bergen]

I might be in the wrong here but i always zone out or turn of the podcast when i hear the word consciousness in any relation to the ufo phenomenon. imo its a way for people to make up another field of ufology that requires absolutely no expertise in any kind of science or just a smart mind.

 

[Burnt State]

I might be in the wrong here but i always zone out or turn of the podcast when i hear the word consciousness in any relation to the ufo phenomenon. imo its a way for people to make up another field of ufology that requires absolutely no expertise in any kind of science or just a smart mind.

Fringe discussion topics easily lend themselves to odd associations and new overlays through which to see the thing in a new light. Where I think there is a simple important connection to be made between the liminal zone of paranormal and UFO exeriences is in the persistent sense of disorientation witnesses report. Given that there are so many strange conflicting reports from simultaneous witnesses where perception appears to be distorted, both in what is seen/not seen or how reality appears to be altered, placed on pause etc. it seems that the phenomenon is either affecting consciousness or interacting with it in some manner. Exploring consciousness makes sense in light of this. After all, where else is there to go?

 

[smcder]

I might be in the wrong here but i always zone out or turn of the podcast when i hear the word consciousness in any relation to the ufo phenomenon. imo its a way for people to make up another field of ufology that requires absolutely no expertise in any kind of science or just a smart mind.

What specifically led you to form this opinion? - which podcasts or commentators?

 

[smcder]

Steve, thanks for tagging me in your post on Hagelin. I purchased a book of his about four years ago and his thinking is obviously significant given his accomplishments in physics. Your next post detailing some of those is most appreciated too. I purchased a general interest book of his about four years ago in which he attempted to apply his insights into the inherently interconnected processes maintaining balance in nature to the social, economic, and ethical problems of our civilization at this stage in our history. Others here concerned with the present state of human culture might want to have a look at it:

213. John Hagelin, Ph.D. - Buddha at the Gas Pump (host Rick Archer)
Buddha at the Gas Pump -

~4:00 JH begins an overview of physics since he published his paper equating consciousness and the unified field (25 years ago) and responds to Rick's question to "define consciousness in the unified field theory":

• since then we have the emergence of consciousness from taboo to not only a subject of dignified discussion, but essential discussion
• consciousness is still cutting edge (or beyond) for a “run-the-mill physical scientist” but they do understand it's important
• (we have learned) "a little bit about consciousness and a lot about the unified field" in the meantime; (it is) "nearly established" (and accepted by leaders in theoretical physics) at the basis of the universe are deeper levels of reality - increasingly unified and subtle (abstract, holistic and comprehensive) – this culminated in the discovery of unified field theory, i.e. superstring and m-theory
• "So now if you asked a leader in physics, certainly a theoretical physicist, is there a universal field of intelligence at the basis of all forms and phenomena in the universe, at the basis of the four forces of nature and all the particles on which they act, they would say undoubtedly yes" . . . that's new (later in the podcast JH defines what he means here by intelligence)
• at CERN, there has been certain types of evidence to support the unified field but key types of evidence still waited on . . . when CERN re-opens with higher energies hopefully experiments can be done to confirm

The Unified Field and consciousness10:10 RA when we say unified field we’re talking about the essential constituent of reality – consciousness from the Vedic perspective is pretty much the same thing and from the perspective of someone who is established in it, there is nothing more concrete, its called the rock-like (unintelligible vutasta vitasta?) in Sanskrit

JH pure consciousness is structured in non-concreteness, but it becomes familiar with itself and stands on its own as a non-perturbable immutable reality that witnesses all the activites of mind and speech and action yet is in a sense abstract/without attributes/devoid of relative specifics yet it is concrete in the sense that we experience it to be the self or vantage pt from which we see everything else, it is the rock it is the one unchangeable immutable aspect of our nature, everything else is changing

“all the concepts the intellect can come up with fail to grasp the remarkably subtle nature of reality”

12:15 JH . . . the concept of the atom turns out to be wrong, the nucleus is a wave of an abstract field, if you say no particles only fields, even the fields slip through your fingers because b/c the concept of a classical field is too gross to describe what is a quantum field b/c a classical field has some shape whereas a quantum field can’t exist in any specific shape at any instant, it has quantum co-existence a super-position of all possible shapes . . . all the concepts the intellect can come up with fail to grasp the remarkably subtle nature of reality – the history of physics over the past century has been an effort to grasp the ultimate building blocks of the universe . . . you keep on reaching deeper and they keep on slipping through your fingers and ultimately you get to this superstring or unified field – it’s abstract, unbounded and unchanging, immortal

NEXT: Role of the observer
14:44 RA begins discussion of the role of observation and the collapse of the wave function . . .

 

[Bergen]

What specifically led you to form this opinion? - which podcasts or commentators?

What specifically led you to form this opinion? - which podcasts or commentators?

Pretty much all the ufologist i respect never use the word . Most of the people i dont use the word all the time : steven greer, linda m.h., the hosts at project camelot etc.

To be clear im solely into UFOs , and i dont like to think of it as something supernatural. I think the existence of UFOs are proven just in the shear amount of sightings, what they are is , of course , unclear. So i dont like when UFOs get lumped in with bigfoot and ghosts etc. just becouse it hurts the serioisness of the field. Throwing consciousness in the mix with ufos is imo just that, making the ufo phenomenon into something supernatural.
Imo , and i emphasise this is my personal opinion , UFOs should be investigated with the help of real science and or serious investigative journalism. The ufos and consciousness mix is just one stop short of sitting in a circle holding hands with miniature pyramids on their heads . This hurts the field by putting the "nut" stamp on even the serious investigators .

 

[smcder]

Discussion of the role of the observer in the collapse of the wave function, I tried to capture this part verbatim because I thought it was important to understand his position.

213. John Hagelin, Ph.D. - Buddha at the Gas Pump (host Rick Archer)
Buddha at the Gas Pump -

Role of the observer14:44 RAbegins discussion of the role of observation and the wave function

". . . when that molecule is embedded in a broader environment, in a pool of water or something that otherwise connects to the macroscopic world, that kind of quantum co-existence or quantum superposition doesn’t seem to survive - it doesn’t survive and the collapse occurs. Does it take a human observer? Probably not . . .

JH the wave function does collapse due to the observation of and perhaps in the consciousness of human beings. I think most physicists, most scholars of quantum mechanics would say in the absence of human perceivers there are other perceivers and to some degree the broader environment acts as a perceiver. So that, for example, when a photon travels from the sun to the earth and falls upon a clump of trees, even a single tree which has a thousand or a million leaves, that photon, which is a spread out wave function, almost like a flashlight coming in as a wave, that individual photon which is spread out in this QM sense of a wave function . . . will collapse when it strikes one of the leaves b/c that leaf is gonna stay green - its capturing the energy, the light is able to transform, create energy, keep chlorophyll . . . the other leaves will turn brown

16:38 RA So when you say it collapses it becomes a particle?

Yes its position which was unlocalized will now get localized to within the individual molecule chlorophyll, where its gonna be transferred into energy, transformed into chemical energy so a collapse is taking place and somebody could argue – well, wait a second so one of those leaves stays healthy the others turn brown maybe that doesn’t happen until an observer strolls by and glances at it. Most physicists would say: no the existence of the leaf and the tree to which it is connected is enough to collapse the wave function from non-localized to localized, enough to collapse the particle from a wave to a particle and it’s hard to prove that b/c in the absence of any observer who’s to tell? But it becomes quite awkward to push that too far. So it seems to be the case that the simplest way of thinking about it is that the environment itself, the macroscopic environment - if that leaf weren’t a leaf but was just a molecule floating in empty space and the photon wave function went past it – would it absorb, collapse the particle or not? And the answer is probably not. That molecule would both absorb and not absorb the particle and that molecule would be in a quantum co-existence basically of green and brown, in a quantum co-existence, a superposition; when that molecule is embedded in a broader environment, in a pool of water or something that otherwise connects to the macroscopic world, that kind of quantum co-existence or quantum superposition doesn’t seem to survive - it doesn’t survive and the collapse occurs. Does it take a human observer? Probably not . . .

 

[smcder]

Pretty much all the ufologist i respect never use the word . Most of the people i dont use the word all the time : steven greer, linda m.h., the hosts at project camelot etc.

To be clear im solely into UFOs , and i dont like to think of it as something supernatural. I think the existence of UFOs are proven just in the shear amount of sightings, what they are is , of course , unclear. So i dont like when UFOs get lumped in with bigfoot and ghosts etc. just becouse it hurts the serioisness of the field. Throwing consciousness in the mix with ufos is imo just that, making the ufo phenomenon into something supernatural.
Imo , and i emphasise this is my personal opinion , UFOs should be investigated with the help of real science and or serious investigative journalism. The ufos and consciousness mix is just one stop short of sitting in a circle holding hands with miniature pyramids on their heads . This hurts the field by putting the "nut" stamp on even the serious investigators .

Throwing consciousness in the mix with ufos is imo just that, making the ufo phenomenon into something supernatural.

So, is consciousness per se, in your opinion, "supernatural"?

We've had a wide-ranging discussion on many aspects of consciousness on this thread but I don't think we have done a lot directly with ufology. One of the posters @ufology is mainly interested in UFOs but has been a participant on this thread from the beginning. He may be in the best position to respond to your post.

 

[Constance]

OK. Now what? Is there some conclusion about some paranormal phenomenon that autopoietic theory supposedly accounts for? Or was that just for the sake of interest as it relates to the "consciousness" aspect of the thread?

I think that before we can understand the nature of paranormal phenomena we need to understand the nature of consciousness, and Maturana and Varela have made a landmark contribution to our understanding consciousness as evolving from protoconsciousness beginning with the single-celled organism. Among others who have followed and developed their theory, Evan Thompson has developed it over a number of years, beginning with his collaboration with Varela. Of Thompson's books on this subject, Mind in Life (2010) is probably the best source to consult in order to understand the significance of autopoesis and the theory of embodied enactive consciousness. The reviews of the book below will orient you to the grounds for and the significance of Maturana and Varela's thought. M and V were biologists; V also pursued computer science; and both of them referred extensively to phenomenology and especially to Merleau-Ponty.

The overarching topic of Thompson's book is nothing less than the nature of life and mind, where life and mind are conceived not as they often are--that is, as fundamentally separate subjects in need of largely nonintersecting theoretical frameworks--but rather as tightly intertwined phenomena in need of a common explanatory language. The long-anticipated follow-up to The Embodied Mind, this book is even better--clear, lively, original, and compelling. Mind in Life is a work for which a great number of thinkers in philosophy of mind and the cognitive sciences have been eagerly waiting. (Michael Wheeler, author of Reconstructing the Cognitive World: The Next Step)


Evan Thompson has emerged as a major presence in the science of the mind. His new book is quite wonderful to read, and I found it impossible to put down. In particular, his discussion of Husserl's phenomenology is a revelation, as are his reasons for reversing his former criticisms of Husserl. His discussion of one of the central issues driving modern cognitive neuroscience, the binding problem, is particularly valuable and should compel a major reexamination of experiments being carried out in this field. Evan Thompson is doing important work in re-framing the very questions that define cognitive science. (Merlin Donald, Case Western Reserve University)


There is no deeper prison of the modern mind than the Cartesian legacy that splits mind from life, and no more arduous climb to escape. Thompson provides a topo map--rich, multifaceted, superbly documented--by detailing the work of the many (but relatively few among contemporary scientists and philosophers) who recognize the impasse and strive to transcend it. (Walter J. Freeman, author of How Brains Make Up Their Minds)


Neurophenomenology is the majestic method we naturalists have been seeking to blend experience, behavior, and the brain. This long-awaited book will open up the discussion of what experience is and where it is, and how we explain the connection between the objective world of physical activity and that of pain, love, and imagining. Thompson enacts the method he espouses, neurophenomenology, in each chapter with in-depth examples that mind scientists will find compelling. A tour de force! (Owen Flanagan)

Is Mind continuous with Life? Can better phenomenology improve our scientific understanding of consciousness and cognition? In this elegant and thought-provoking treatment, Evan Thompson explores a vision of mind and life that traces a path from simple cellular organizations all the way to consciousness, intersubjectivity, and culture. A wonderful and important journey, and a compulsory trip for all those interested in the explanation of mind and experience. (Andy Clark, author of Being There: Putting Brain, Body and World Together Again)


Though modesty prevents him from claiming an original theory or dramatic new synthesis, in Mind in Life, one of the world's top philosophers offers a brilliant and inspired treatise into the so-called "explanatory gap" between life and mind, nature and consciousness. Thompson stands apart in his ability to link objective descriptions of life and mind with our subjective experience of them. Here he weaves the phenomenological analysis of experience and the latest developments in the fields of cognitive science, neuroscience and biology into a rich coordinated whole in which life and mind are seen to be intrinsically and essentially dynamic and self-organizing. Curious people who want to appreciate this hard won insight and better understand the deep continuity of life and mind will want to read this unique and illuminating book. (J.A. Scott Kelso, author of Dynamic Patterns: the Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior and (with David A. Engstrom) co-author of The Complementary Nature)

I think this book deserves close study, since it offers a holistic and dynamic perspective on how life and mind interact and how mind, body, and world form an inseparable unity...Thompson has written a book that for philosophers may give a new incentive to rethink and reconceptualize our place in the world that surpasses dualistic thinking. If that was the purpose of the book, it has succeeded. (Taede A. Smedes Metapsychology 2008-05-20)


The aim of Evan Thompson's Mind in Life is to suggest a new way forward in the long-running attempt to connect biological knowledge about how body and brain work with our phenomenological experience of life. The book is an impressive work of synthesis, drawing together an array of themes in biology, neuroscience, cognitive science, phenomenology, and consciousness studies...This is a highly impressive work, of considerable scope, importance, and originality. The book is not, nor does it claim to be, an easy read for a general audience: the fields of consciousness studies and phenomenology are replete with necessary jargon, and Mind in Life builds on decades of discovery and debate. On the other hand, the argument is accessible to nonspecialists willing to take the time, for Thompson presents complex ideas with commendable fluency. For philosophers of biology, as for cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind, Mind in Life is sure to become essential reading. (John C. Waller Isis 2008-12-01)


The book is a tremendous success and amounts to a superior contribution to recent and current debates in the philosophy of mind. Thompson displays a deeply impressive grasp of the relevant literature across a range of disciplines, including biology, phenomenology, psychology and neuroscience. Not only has he read widely, he has an admirable intellectual independence, and is confident of the arguments he wants to demonstrate and the direction he wants the sciences of the mind to take...One of the richest contributions to the study of "mind in life" in recent years. It deserves to become a major work of reference and inspiration for research in the immediate future and, indeed, for many years to come. It provides a genuine and far-reaching clarification of core issues in the philosophy and science of the mind, and is to be greatly welcomed. (Keith Ansell-Pearson Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 2009-06-01)

 

[Burnt State]

Pretty much all the ufologist i respect never use the word . Most of the people i dont use the word all the time : steven greer, linda m.h., the hosts at project camelot etc.

To be clear im solely into UFOs , and i dont like to think of it as something supernatural. I think the existence of UFOs are proven just in the shear amount of sightings, what they are is , of course , unclear. So i dont like when UFOs get lumped in with bigfoot and ghosts etc. just becouse it hurts the serioisness of the field. Throwing consciousness in the mix with ufos is imo just that, making the ufo phenomenon into something supernatural.
Imo , and i emphasise this is my personal opinion , UFOs should be investigated with the help of real science and or serious investigative journalism. The ufos and consciousness mix is just one stop short of sitting in a circle holding hands with miniature pyramids on their heads . This hurts the field by putting the "nut" stamp on even the serious investigators .

I agree with yo regarding the examples that you cite but if you listen to current conversations, and where all the other ufologists end up going, is that the nuts and bolts phenomenon appears to be only a part of the equation, and increasingly a smaller one, whereas the more bizarre, OZ factor, mutating ship, altered perspectives of witness reports etc. all seem to be talking more and more about how UFO interact with consciousness. I don't mean in a space brother Greer kind of way, but in that many reports by witnesses tend towards the bizarre and suggest something else is taking place. This would definitely align itself with something more along the line of the Keelian and Ultra terrestrial Mac Tonnies philosophy. Vallee certainly expands our notions of how we consider the idea of the UFO craft and it also moves beyond the ETH with aliens in a ship from stars beyond.

We've previously spoken about how real science is not that interested in putting in time or energy into this issue so that's more of a vain hope. This thread is an exploration of how unique phenomenon may be related to our consciousness, which is perhaps more supernatural than we think it is. Either way, the serious investigator is going to be marginalized as always. That's not really a concern here. The idea of growing public acceptance of the paranormal and UFO's is steadily on the rise. However, the pantheon of new thinkers, strong ideas, involved approaches to the subject matter etc. - those all appear to be mostly on the decline and that's an even bigger problem. That means less science and less creative thought. I don't think you can stop the UFO world from being part of that liminal world. Even the most straight forward of commentators such as Jerome Clark acknowledges that the weird factor is a dominant trend in the UFO world as it does often belong to a very slippery, intangible and anomalous location. How do you complete any science on such things anyway?

The field is broken, some would say beyond repair, set adrift, directionless and certainly in need of new, strong voices. And until then, I'm going to listen to RPJ on Radio Misterioso and others wax on about tricksters and consciousness as that makes a lot more sense towards explaining anything tangible about UFO's than anything else in the last ten or twenty years.

 

[Constance]

It seems to me that our consciousness works well enough to be able to explore all kinds of things, including the paranormal. However with respect to the thread's orientation ( Consciousness and the Paranormal ), I would have to agree that a deeper understanding of consciousness itself would be a prerequisite for advancing the discussion. In that spirit, the content you've posted is highly applicable and even touches on some of the posts made earlier on with respect to the theory that consciousness might be a kind of field, possibly composed of virtual photons, analogous to a magnetic field. It's all quite fringe, but worthy of serious consideration and reflection.

It seems that Hagelin's idea of a consciousness field comes closest to approximating the 'virtual proton' field you've been talking about. He seems to have given up on string theory as the particular quantum-based theory that could account for his 'field'. My impression is that quantum entanglement is the q. phenomenon most likely to be the key to understanding a wide range of our connective and interconnective human experience, including paranormal experiences and capabilities. Since we presently understand almost as little about the quantum and subquantum substrates of nature as we do about human consciousness, none of these data sources should at this point be ignored or labelled as 'fringe' topics. It is in interdisciplinary consciousness studies, now two decades old, that the necessary meetings of minds occur. Materialist science has for several centuries made itself almost irrelevant to the effort to uncover the nature of consciousness.

I think some of the above [re: Maturana, Valera Thompson et al] is more opinion than fact, ...

You'd have to study their books and papers to find out about that.

...but like I was getting at earlier, what you've shown us so far so far appears to be rational and based on logical extrapolation. Are you at the point where you can propose how some specific idea associated with autopoietic theory can be applied to our understanding of some specific aspect of the paranormal?

The significance of the insights that led to autopoietic theory and the phenomenology of embodied enactive consciousness is that they fundamentally overcome the mind/matter dualism that continues to limit scientific thinking and practice, and has until very recently deterred most scientists from engaging in work on consciousness. The more we succeed in learning about consciousness, the less paranormal phenomena will seem 'impossible'. Your question asks for "a specific idea associated with autopoietic theory" that can be "applied to our understanding of some specific aspect of the paranormal." I can think of one offhand that showed up in a patient undergoing regression therapy by Dr. Brian Weiss, a psychiatrist at the University of Miami hospital. In one of the sessions involved, the patient suddenly began to describe memories and knowledge concerning a life as an amphibian in a remote time. Weiss was shocked by this and paid close attention to the details she related. Among them was the statement that the amphibian's sexual behavior or impulses were managed from a patch of different colored skin on its temple (don't remember if bilaterally or only on one side). Later Weiss discussed this strange information with some herpetologists and other scientists at the university and was told that this information was indeed correct and had only been discovered very recently. The patient was a young lab worker at the hospital who was plagued by unsourceable pain and anxiety; other psychiatrists on the staff had not been able to help her and so they asked Weiss to work with her. By the account presented in Weiss's book, she does not seem a likely candidate for a hoax. Her memory under hypnotic regression might be an indication that in the evolution of our brains numerous traces of information have remained embedded in the collective unconscious of our species as it evolved from other species on the planet
.

For example, what if I were to say that a disembodied consciousness would seem to violate the principles of autopoietic theory because it separates itself from the unity of the whole individual?

Paranormal events and communications involving disembodied consciousnesses suggest that human consciousnesses (and perhaps other species consciousnesses) remain viable in some form after the death of the body and still interconnected with the people and projects most important to them. As Stephen Braude argued in an interview I linked last week, psi should be explored in its most impressive (and veridical) manifestations over the last 130 years rather than our continuing with the kinds of statistical experimentation that has been carried on for decades now in the universities. Autopoetic theory and embodied enactive consciousness theory provide a rational and biologically grounded approach to nature and consciousness that suggests that your phrase "the unity of the whole individual" is off the mark -- that while we each have a core unity or integrity we call a 'self' that accompanies us throughout our embodied lives (and might survive them), we are also entangled, interconnected, and integrated with other consciousnesses in our species' as well as our individual experiences in the past as well as the present. Our boundaries are permeable at the same time as they constitute our sense of the individuality of our selves (which Maturana and Varela recognized to be true of all life, beginning with single-celled organisms).

 

[Constance]

Perhaps, but the question was: What does disembodied consciousness have to do with autopoietic theory? For example, in Wikipedia it says: "An autopoietic system is to be contrasted with an allopoietic system, such as a car factory, which uses raw materials (components) to generate a car (an organized structure) which is something other than itself (the factory)." In the case of consciousness, all substantial evidence suggests that it is an emergent property of a normally functioning body ( brain-body system ) in its waking state; ...

Read Maturana and Varela on the emergence of the sense of 'self'/'not-self' that occurs at the permeable boundary of the cell (indeed the first living cell that somehow cropped up out of the primordial chemical soup). The 'awareness' or protoconsciousness of that cell came about because of that boundary, across which information (as well as nutrition) passed, information indicating both an inside and an outside (selfhood and otherness) relevant to the cell's existence. You'd really need to read their description to appreciate the magnitude of this discovery. What's demonstrated is not consciousness as we experience it but the primal seed of consciousness, the initial capacity for the development of consciousness in the long evolution of species on this planet. At the core of this blooming of the first living cell is exchange of information, interaction, across a permeable boundary. Various large physical fields and forces in nature, systems possessing some degree of integrity, also interact and exchange information, initially tipping them toward chaos and then back again to integrity, balance, and order (processes endlessly repeated, likely expanding the more information is exchanged).

Organic processes, such as the emergence of autopoiesis with life, can't be compared with allopoietic processes such as the example of the car factory suggested by wiki. You ask what the phenomenon of apparently disembodied consciousnesses interacting with embodied consciousnesses could have to do with autopoiesis, assuming that a consciousness developed throughout a lifetime could not survive the death of the physical organism in which it was embodied during its development. This seems less unbelievable when we realize that it is immaterial entangled information that survives, as all information in the universe survives. In the personal case it is information integrated over a lifetime of conscious personal experience, emotional involvements, thought, and activity -- all in part motivated by unconscious information we carry as (in ourselves) expressions of nature, as members of a species carrying collective memories and instincts, fears and desires, and as members of a family and network of friends, co-workers, and colleagues with whom our lives are entangled. We are conscious from the moment of birth (and, it increasingly seems, even before that), and our consciousness maintains an ongoing accumulation of experience that resides within us as information. It's now almost a scientific commonplace to see the universe as constructed and perpetuated by information. And information is not material.

The above also leads to other questions, like where does our consciousness go while we sleep? Does it just go floating off as if we're dead? And if so why is there no definitive evidence that we go along for the ride and experience the same objective reality we experience while we're awake, but from the perspective of our disembodied consciousness? Instead, the vast majority of the time, any consciousness that manifests itself while asleep is in the form of dreams which bear little or no direct correlation with objective reality. And what happens when the dream ends and we're gone altogether? Does consciousness collapse and manifest itself anew when we wake up? If so, that means for all intent and purpose our consciousness dies every night and is reborn every morning. There are just so many problems to resolve that I fear that by the time they are resolved this discussion will be ancient history, and we'll have all our questions answered by virtue of firsthand experience.

Interesting questions about sleep and dreaming. I meant to find and link some interesting material on those subjects once before and will do so now.

 

[Constance]

Here is a link to Evan Thompson's Mind in Life ~~~



Parts of the book readable at Google Books ~~~

Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind - Evan Thompson - Google Books