Consciousness and the Paranormal

[smcder]

There is an interview with Lanier on this page:

I'll a have a look - he is on ABC Big Ideas, I know I've heard at least one of his talks . . .

there are several short videos here at BigThink:

Jaron Lanier | Author, "You Are Not a Gadget" | Big Think

 

[Burnt State]

Has anyone checked out the very generous thread our most cheerful poster provided?

[URL="https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/is-the-anomalist-on-a-fools-errand-thomas-e-bullard.14610/"]Is the Anomalist on a Fool's Errand?" - Thomas E. Bullard[/URL]

The index alone is a meal for the paranormal connoisseur. It's a good pick-up for this thread or a new place to evolve this chain of thought.

 

[smcder]

Has anyone checked out the very generous thread our most cheerful poster provided?

Is the Anomalist on a Fool's Errand?" - Thomas E. Bullard

The index alone is a meal for the paranormal connoisseur. It's a good pick-up for this thread or a new place to evolve this chain of thought.

Has anyone checked out the very generous thread our most cheerful poster provided?

Is the Anomalist on a Fool's Errand?" - Thomas E. Bullard

The index alone is a meal for the paranormal connoisseur. It's a good pick-up for this thread or a new place to evolve this chain of thought.

Schlagen Sie uns etwas vor . . .

 

[Soupie]

I've only caught the tail end of this discussion and need to read from the beginning. However, a question I have is: How does a disembodied consciousness gather sensory data?

There's such a thing as a sensory deprivation tank in which a person floats silently in the dark effectively depriving ones brain of sensory information. Once deprived, the mind begins to hallucinate.

If a mind was separated from it's body, by what mechanism would it gather visual, audio, olfactory, etc. information?

If we're arguing that OBEs are natural experiences, then this is a question needing answered. If we're arguing that OBEs are supernatural then I suppose the assumption is that a disembodied mind can simply gather sensory data.

Or, is it that people experiencing OBEs actually have a "body" as well?

 

[smcder]

Has anyone checked out the very generous thread our most cheerful poster provided?

Is the Anomalist on a Fool's Errand?" - Thomas E. Bullard

The index alone is a meal for the paranormal connoisseur. It's a good pick-up for this thread or a new place to evolve this chain of thought.

Make us a suggestion!

 

[smcder]

I've only caught the tail end of this discussion and need to read from the beginning. However, a question I have is: How does a disembodied consciousness gather sensory data?

There's such a thing as a sensory deprivation tank in which a person floats silently in the dark effectively depriving ones brain of sensory information. Once deprived, the mind begins to hallucinate.

If a mind was separated from it's body, by what mechanism would it gather visual, audio, olfactory, etc. information?

If we're arguing that OBEs are natural experiences, then this is a question needing answered. If we're arguing that OBEs are supernatural then I suppose the assumption is that a disembodied mind can simply gather sensory data.

Or, is it that people experiencing OBEs actually have a "body" as well?

I've only caught the tail end of this discussion and need to read from the beginning.

I would definitely read from the beginning. There's a lot in your question to untangle.

You might search the web for subtle or etheric bodies - on this thread, I posted a transcript of John Hagelin on Buddha at the Gas Pump podcast discussing "shadow matter" in relation to etheric bodies -that might be of some interest, you could also try an image search for any of these terms to bring up diagrams.

Dean Radin's books may have some answers, I have not read "Entangled Minds" but perhaps there is something there. Radin also maintains this page: http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm which is a good place to go for peer-reviewed publications, I think some of them would be relevant to your question. Let us know what you find out.

 

[smcder]

I've only caught the tail end of this discussion and need to read from the beginning. However, a question I have is: How does a disembodied consciousness gather sensory data?

There's such a thing as a sensory deprivation tank in which a person floats silently in the dark effectively depriving ones brain of sensory information. Once deprived, the mind begins to hallucinate.

If a mind was separated from it's body, by what mechanism would it gather visual, audio, olfactory, etc. information?

If we're arguing that OBEs are natural experiences, then this is a question needing answered. If we're arguing that OBEs are supernatural then I suppose the assumption is that a disembodied mind can simply gather sensory data.

Or, is it that people experiencing OBEs actually have a "body" as well?

The traditional idea of The Great Chain of Being might also be of interest.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/greatchainofbeing/greatchain-correspondences.gif

 

[Tyger]

Steve - your avatar changes! I liked your last one - this one, not so much (contrast). May we vote?

 

[smcder]

Steve - your avatar changes! I liked your last one - this one, not so much (contrast). May we vote?

I didn't think this one actually took - PC just kept running trying to attach, and I realized it wouldn't make a good thumbnail - here's the full size picture.

 

[Soupie]

I have to admit, I liked the old one too. What was it from?

 

[Tyger]

And this new avatar picture is.....relevant how? Is that a ufo you have got stashed in the old tobacco barn on the back 40?

 

[smcder]

I have to admit, I liked the old one too. What was it from?

FINE . . . I changed it back. It is Adam Kadmon - constructed from the Tetragrammaton:

Early kabbalists imagined creation taking place in several stages, from which was generated the anthropomorphic image of the ‘primordial man’, or Adam Kadmon. This ‘first man’ was imagined as being crated out of the four-letters of the Divine Name stacked one on top of the other. Yod was the head, Heh, the arms and shoulders, Vau, the spine and sexual organs, and the final Heh, the hips and legs.

you can see it better here:

 

[smcder]

And this new avatar picture is.....relevant how? Is that a ufo you have got stashed in the old tobacco barn on the back 40?

You don't see the black triangle hovering over-head . . . ????

 

[Tyger]

FINE . . . I changed it back.

Whew! That's a relief! Da udder one wuz freakin' me out, man.......

 

[Tyger]

You don't see the black triangle hovering over-head . . . ????

NOW he asks the question! When we can't see the picture.

Later: Ooops, no we can see it. Ah, yes, I see it - I think it's landing off to the right in the clump of trees.

 

[smcder]

NOW he asks the question! When we can't see the picture.

It all fits the pattern!

 

[Constance]

. . .what do all these apparently distinct phenomena have in common, beyond the stigma of "subjective states" or "paranormal function" imposed on them by the scientific orthodoxy? Although not evident at first glance, there is a remarkable common feature that emerges from their study, and it is simply this: that in questioning their underlying mechanism, one is forced, sooner or later, to recognize the fluid nature of individual boundaries. If one's personality can be dramatically affected by "memories" which could not have possibly originated in the present life; if a trained person can successfully remote view complex physical targets, the emotions of people present at the site, and past or future events including their cognitive context; if our dream experiences can reflect the contents of another human being's simultaneous circumstances or deliberate intent; and if our minds can collectively create such a powerful constructive interference that distant RNGs are capable of detecting it - then how do we decide where one mind ends and another begins? Is is reasonable to believe that telepathy, remote viewing, pre-cognition, reincarnation memories and similar experiences are based on one consciousness mode (non-local in space and time) while our common, waking mind is the emergent product of brain activity? And if we choose to believe that all consciousness is non-local - that it can survive separation from bodily functions - then what can we conclude about the substrate of our individual memories and the limits of the self? What is the role of the brain, beyond a local motor control unit? Clinical amnesia cases suggest that memories can be intactly stored, but non-retrievable. Could the same be one day extended to a vast range of mental experiences - such as dream material and past life events? If what we are is dictated by our memories, then how do we draw the line between experiences acquired via "normal", sensory means, and those we access mentally, such as reincarnation-type data or the rare but powerful remote viewing bi-location event?

The above extract is from the introduction to an informative interview concerning 'metamind' theory at

Interview

 

[smcder]

The above extract is from the introduction to an informative interview concerning 'metamind' theory at

Interview

. . .

Although not evident at first glance, there is a remarkable common feature that emerges from their study, and it is simply this: that in questioning their underlying mechanism, one is forced, sooner or later, to recognize the fluid nature of individual boundaries.

. . .

Is is reasonable to believe that telepathy, remote viewing, pre-cognition, reincarnation memories and similar experiences are based on one consciousness mode (non-local in space and time) while our common, waking mind is the emergent product of brain activity? And if we choose to believe that all consciousness is non-local - that it can survive separation from bodily functions - then what can we conclude about the substrate of our individual memories and the limits of the self?

This does make sense to me and to my experience. I don't have any expectations that I continue after death as "me" (patting myself on the chest) - I'm with the Buddhist idea of dependent origination on that one and I'm not sure why it would be necessary for me, as such, to so continue . . . but I also like Huston Smith's speculation on what happens when we die. It is poetic, very beautiful and written as he resides in an assisted living facility. I will try and transcribe a bit of it.

But I have also, as long as I can now remember, always had the experience of very fluid personal boundaries and thus, perhaps, less commitment to who I am supposed to be than my peers and this has caused some trouble but also created opportunities for a different vantage point on nearly every situation I have been in.

 

[smcder]

@Constance - this is what I was telling you about, think this is a good place to post it, relevant.

This is my transcription of Huston Smith, in a lecture entitled: Why Religion Matters (if anyone wants the exact reference and time stamps, I'll run it down, I've converted and sliced up the file and lost the original meta-data).

The next one . . . is cognitive science. And here my single example has to do with those who are at the cutting edge of cognitive science, I'm thinking about people like Steven Pinker who heads the cognitive science program at MIT and Colin Mcginn who has written an extraordinary book on consciousness, The Mysterious Flame. And here is what that school of thought is saying.

They begin with Descartes who split the world into mind and matter . . . a sharp dichotomy. In terms of human consciousness, why this means we have subjective experiences, feeling and thoughts and then we have the brain.

Now the first premise that they accept, this school, at the growing tip of cognitive science . . . we have two things and there is no way we can reduce either; mind to brain, neuron firing . . . subjective experience to neuron firing or brain to mind we have these two things.

The other thing that is abs clear is that there is a two-way interaction between these two things. Those two points are indubitable.

But now comes the next one which is, that in 300 yrs, since Descartes – we have not moved one hair’s breadth to increase our understanding of what the relationship between the two are.

How is it that the brain, a handful of gray matter, which objectively looks very much like the liver . . . but how can the brain generate experience and thought? We have not moved one bit closer in 300 years and now comes the surprise, they deliver it. That may be exactly where it will remain. That ignorance.

Because . . . they go on to say, what do we think we are? Omniscient? Every decade we're learning about how much more inter-related and mysteriouys things are; the world is and we may in this matter simply have bumped into a problem that is too big for us.

Now this is a very different word in kind from what we have been hearing from science. Which usually is give us the time and give us the money and we'll deliver the answer.

But they are saying: every species has, innate to itself, certain fantastic capability and certain limitation . . .

(here he gives examples, birds building nests and ants building and running a colony)

What about us? They have we say two things that we, our species, is obviously good at. The first is language, where we outstrip every other species and the second is science.
. . .

I, myself, add a third one, they don’t - but what is there to keep us, especially somebody like myself, who is given 45 yrs to the study, from proposing that human beings are good at discerning the essential outline of the world view, good by virtue of the nobility of what they have come up with and good because independently, for the most part, they have converged on the same conclusion.

. . .

 

[smcder]

So pull up a chair, have a seat, and I'll tell you (my idea of) what happens when we die.

From The Huston Smith Reader

The Huston Smith Reader - Huston Smith, Jeffery Paine - Hardcover - University of California Press


Charles Tart, in the psychology department at the University of California at Davis, has devoted his career to studying clairvoyance, telepathy, psychokinesis, and out-of-body experiences. I asked him if he thought his consciousness would survive his bodily death. “Yes, definitely,” Charles answered, only he did not know whether he (or it) would still recognize it as his consciousness. Charles’s answer raises a question. If we survive beyond this single lifespan, do we (a) survive as individuals, or (b) dissolve into something greater (“the Godhead”)? Sri Ramakrishna opted or hoped for the first possibility: “I want to taste sugar. I don’t want to be sugar." In Why Religion Matters I expressed my intuition: we are each allowed to choose for ourselves the possibility we want.

I give myself poetic license to imagine it. After I shed my body, I will remain conscious of old habits and habitations;I will still be concerned with Kendra, Gael, Kim, and the whole dramatis personae of my life on earth. However, a day will come when no one alive will have heard of Huston Smith, much less have known him. What will be the point of my hanging around then? I will turn my back on this dear world and direct my attention to something more interesting:the beatific vision. So long as I remain involved with my individuality, I’ll be aware that it is Huston Smith enjoying this vision. For me, though—mystic that I am at heart—after oscillating back and forth between enjoying the sunset and enjoying Huston-Smith-enjoying-the-sunset, I expect that the uncompromised sunset will become ever more absorbing. The branch of narrowed awareness upon which I rested will sever and fall away. The bird will be set free.