Consciousness and the Paranormal

[smcder]

Realistic Monism - Strawson

One thing we know about physical stuff, given that (real) physicalism is true, is
that when you put it together in the way in which it is put together in brains like
ours, it regularly constitutes—is, literally is—experience like ours. Another thing
we know about it, let us grant, is everything (true) that physics tells us. But what is
this second kind of knowledge like? Well, there is a fundamental sense in which it is
‘abstract’, ‘purely formal’, merely a matter of ‘structure’, in Russell’s words.¹⁸ This is a
well established but often overlooked point.¹⁹ ‘Physics is mathematical’, Russell says,
‘not because we know so much about the physical world’—and here he means the
non-mental, non-experiential world, in my terms, because he is using ‘mental’ and
‘physical’ conventionally as opposed terms—

but because we know so little: it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. For
the rest, our knowledge is negative . . . . The physical world is only known as regards certain
abstract features of its space-time structure—features which, because of their abstractness, do not suffice to show whether the physical world is, or is not, different in intrinsic character from the world of mind.²⁰

¹⁷ I came upon Eddington’s book The Nature of the Physical World in a holiday house in Scotland
in 1999.
¹⁸ 1927a: 392, 382; 1956: 153; 1927b: 125.
¹⁹ It takes time to assimilate it fully. It cannot be simply read off the page.
²⁰ 1948: 240; see also 247. Russell’s overall view is that ‘we know nothing about the intrinsic
quality of physical events except when these are mental events that we directly experience’ (1956:153), and that ‘as regards the world in general, both physical and mental, everything that we know of its intrinsic character is derived from the mental side’ (1927a: 402). See Lockwood 1981, 1989, and Essay 1.

 

[smcder]

[3] the universe is spatiotemporal in its fundamental nature.¹⁶

"¹⁶ This is in doubt in present-day physics and cosmology, for ‘rumors of spacetime’s impending departure from deep physical law are not born of zany theorizing. Instead, this idea is strongly suggested by a number of well-reasoned considerations’ (Greene 2004: 472; see also 473–91). Note that if temporality goes, i.e. not just spacetime as we currently understand it but temporality in any form, then experience also goes, given that experience requires time.

One of the fine consequences of this is that there has never been any suffering. But no
theory of reality can be right that has the consequence that there has never been any suffering.

 

[Soupie]

‘as regards the world in general, both physical and mental, everything that we know of its intrinsic character is derived from the mental side’

What does he mean by "derived from the mental side?" That without a conscious observer the universe wouldn't exist? If a tree falls down in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

[Soupie]

Philip K. Dick Theorizes The Matrix in 1977, Declares That We Live in “A Computer-Programmed Reality” | Open Culture

In the article, PKD is quoted as saying something quite interesting in regards to the discussion in this thread:

"I in my stories and novels sometimes write about counterfeit worlds. Semi-real worlds as well as deranged private worlds, inhabited often by just one person…. At no time did I have a theoretical or conscious explanation for my preoccupation with these pluriform pseudo-worlds, but now I think I understand. What I was sensing was the manifold of partially actualized realities lying tangent to what evidently is the most actualized one—the one that the majority of us, by consensus gentium, agree on."

Do humans create reality by consensus?

 

[smcder]

What does he mean by "derived from the mental side?" That without a conscious observer the universe wouldn't exist? If a tree falls down in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

no no . . . this is Russell after all . . . he just means all we have is the subjective . . . how else do you know anything?

 

[Soupie]

no no . . . this is Russell after all . . . he just means all we have is the subjective . . . how else do you know anything?

Ok. I was thrown off by the use of "derived" rather than a phrase like, say, "experienced via" or something like that.

In this sense, everything we experience is "pyschological" because it all must be filtered through the mind. That is why the scientific method, replication, and consensus are such valuable tools. They give us a sense (perhaps a false sense) that it's not just all in our head.

 

[smcder]

Ok. I was thrown off by the use of "derived" rather than a phrase like, say, "experienced via" or something like that.

In this sense, everything we experience is "pyschological" because it all must be filtered through the mind. That is why the scientific method, replication, and consensus are such valuable tools. They give us a sense (perhaps a false sense) that it's not just all in our head.

I don't see any way around expressing it that all experience comes through your subjective experience . . . now, we can argue about any (or all) of those words if you like. ;-)

 

[smcder]

Philip K. Dick Theorizes The Matrix in 1977, Declares That We Live in “A Computer-Programmed Reality” | Open Culture

In the article, PKD is quoted as saying something quite interesting in regards to the discussion in this thread:

"I in my stories and novels sometimes write about counterfeit worlds. Semi-real worlds as well as deranged private worlds, inhabited often by just one person…. At no time did I have a theoretical or conscious explanation for my preoccupation with these pluriform pseudo-worlds, but now I think I understand. What I was sensing was the manifold of partially actualized realities lying tangent to what evidently is the most actualized one—the one that the majority of us, by consensus gentium, agree on."

Do humans create reality by consensus?

Do humans create reality by consensus?

To paraphrase (slightly) Sir Humphrey Appleby:

Well, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage.

 

[smcder]

Philip K. Dick Theorizes The Matrix in 1977, Declares That We Live in “A Computer-Programmed Reality” | Open Culture

In the article, PKD is quoted as saying something quite interesting in regards to the discussion in this thread:

"I in my stories and novels sometimes write about counterfeit worlds. Semi-real worlds as well as deranged private worlds, inhabited often by just one person…. At no time did I have a theoretical or conscious explanation for my preoccupation with these pluriform pseudo-worlds, but now I think I understand. What I was sensing was the manifold of partially actualized realities lying tangent to what evidently is the most actualized one—the one that the majority of us, by consensus gentium, agree on."

Do humans create reality by consensus?

Do humans create reality by consensus?

Do you know of the connection between The Book of Romans and A Scanner Darkly? It's worth looking up - it's well told in the animated film A Scanner Darkly which I highly recommend.
"I in my stories and novels sometimes write about counterfeit worlds. Semi-real worlds as well as deranged private worlds, inhabited often by just one person…. At no time did I have a theoretical or conscious explanation for my preoccupation with these pluriform pseudo-worlds, but now I think I understand. What I was sensing was the manifold of partially actualized realities lying tangent to what evidently is the most actualized one—the one that the majority of us, by consensus gentium, agree on."
What I was sensing was the manifold of partially actualized realities lying tangent to what evidently is the most actualized one—the one that the majority of us, by consensus gentium, agree on."

I see two things here: the social worlds that we do create by common agreement and then the idea that there are objectively other worlds (or partially actualized realities) that we then bring into full actualization by agreeing on - by somehow our consciousness having an effect on reality. But the trick is, how exactly would we know the difference? How would we construct that experiment, And this is where two points above come in:

1.) ‘as regards the world in general, both physical and mental, everything that we know of its intrinsic character is derived from the mental side’

2.) In this sense, everything we experience is "pyschological" because it all must be filtered through the mind. That is why the scientific method, replication, and consensus are such valuable tools. They give us a sense (perhaps a false sense) that it's not just all in our head.

But Thomas Kuhn says that when paradigms shift, the world changes:

Probably Kuhn's most controversial claim is that the very world changes as a result of a paradigm shift, as an example Kuhn points to the shift in chemistry following Dalton's equal ratio claims that turned into atomism, arguing "when it was done, even the percentage composition of well known compounds was changed - the data themselves had changed.

Now, we can say that because the experimental design was changed according to the new paradigm, new data was brought forth (from the set of all possible data ;-) or we can say (and I don't think Kuhn meant this) that the world literally changed . . . but, again, how do we completely know this from our subjective viewpoint? It seems to me that on some questions the world is ambiguous and we can pile up evidence in equal portion on either side, but then we all have to make an individual decision from there.

To me, this is one of several points in human experience (perhaps in thinking, perhaps in the brain, in some hole in cognition left by the brain's evolution (but then, how could we trust any of it? - asks Plantinga) that supports Colin McGinn's notion that we just aren't good at certain philosophical questions


Cognitive closure (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


For McGinn one of these is the hard problem of consciousness but there seem to be many others - maybe he or someone else has made a map of these . . . here there be Dragons!

 

[Soupie]

Do you know of the connection between The Book of Romans and A Scanner Darkly? It's worth looking up - it's well told in the animated film A Scanner Darkly which I highly recommend.

No, I'm not familiar with that connection. I've heard of the movie but have not seen it. I'll be sure to in the future though. Thanks.

I think it can be said that there are three "realities." But they're so convoluted and intertwined that it's hard to really suss them apart.

Objective Reality - The temperature is 70 degrees

Subjective Private Reality - 70 degrees is too hot!

Subjective Consensus Reality - 70 degrees is just right!

I think subjective consensus reality (culture) has a huge impact on an individual's subjective private reality. But I think certain charismatic or otherwise influential, trend setting individuals can influence the subjective consensus reality with their subjective private reality a la Steve Jobs.

Consensus Science would argue that neither an individual's subjective private reality nor the subjective consensus reality can change objective reality. The Global Consciousness Project is investigating this possibility, but so far the results have been disappointing.

Furthermore, some people have a pathological problem distinguishing between subjective private reality and objective reality, and it severely impacts their ability to live a "normal" life.

Of course, as you've noted, the catch in all of this is that one's knowledge of objective reality and subjective consensus reality is derived from our subjective private reality! But again, this is why the scientific method has been such a valuable tool for humans. But the SM has its limits and it can only truly measure those aspects of objective reality that are material in nature. As you suggest, there are likely aspects of OR that the human mind and the SM are just not equipped to comprehend. (And this is where people who use DMT say "we can help you with that!")

 

[Soupie]

Perhaps I can help you "suss them apart".

The reason I think it's hard to tease them apart is because 1) it's hard to measure objective reality, e.g., two thermometers might report different temperatures, 2) it can be hard at times to distinguish between objective reality and private subjective reality, e.g., is the car red or does it just look red to me?, 3) sometimes subjective consensus reality gets confused for objective reality, e.g., any example I list would be too touchy, haha.

What you call "consensus reality" then falls under the general heading of "Subjective Reality", and isn't so much a type of reality as it is an assessment of truth, which takes us into another area of philosophical reasoning.

Yes, I do label it Subjective Consensus Reality. I disagree that it is best described as an assessment of truth, although that's part of it (it's more like an assertion of truth); I think SCR is captured by a group's culture and the Official Story on which the leaders of the group have reached a consensus. Thus, the SCR will differ from culture to culture.

Due to technology and globalization, all SCRs are beginning to collapse into one (as are all cultures).

 

[Soupie]

Temperature is not an objective reality.

And this is a perfect example of Subjective Private Reality being confused with Objective Reality.

Temperature @ Wikipedia.

"A temperature is a numerical measure of hot and cold. Its measurement is by detection of heat radiation or particle velocity or kinetic energy, or by the bulk behavior of a thermometric material."

Why do you disagree?

Objective Reality is the "truth." Subjective Consensus Reality is what the majority believes the truth is.

 

[Burnt State]

I grew up in Northern Ontario and I respond to the 'cold' outside much differently than my Southern Ontario colleagues who bundle themselves up far too much for my liking. I bet those Russians from the village where they jump into freezing water and hang out in it for quite a while once a week also have a different experience to the cold. Most polar explorers routinely prepared for the north using ice baths to condition their bodies and prep their immune systems. The experience of temperature is always about conditioning the body, and so for all people, temperature is relative.

 

[Burnt State]

I would, however, like to return to the idea that the experience of consciousness is pretty much always subjective, that it is influenced by many things including culture, past experiences, mostly recorded memories, personal conditioning and is very tied to what our perceptual apparatus is familiar with and routinely tries to make sense of reality, and any oddities experienced therein, by 'fudging the data' whenever it needs to in order to produce sensory experiences that make sense to the individual. So in truth,while there may be a great number of similarities in reports of objective reality, even those that science can routinely find a rough consensus on, we still all experience our own generalized, and smoothened out version of reality based on our individual experiences and training of how to experience objective reality. I routinely wear t-shirts around 5-10 degrees Celsius outside while others find this intolerable.

Consequently, there's a lot of odd paranormal experiences 'seen' by individuals that may have in fact very simple mundane answers. Though the science behind these outlandish reports may be tricky in its weaving, brain chemistry and its interactions with unique environments may in fact be producing collectively some of the unique paranormal experiences individuals claim to have, and these, hallucinations' may be shared with other nearby witnesses whose own biology and shared cultural conditioning are similar.

Time slips, ghosts, strange cryptids, dog-faced men, centaurs and UFO's may have some of their roots in biology and perception. I'm not excluding the opportunity for a unique stimulus like a nuts and bolts flying saucer to exist, but would like to suggest again that a lot of weirdness that people see may all just be in their heads.

The UFO Iconoclast(s): Oliver Sacks, Hallucinations, and UFOs

The comments afterwards are also necessary and informative reading.

 

[Soupie]

Temperature as defined as the speed at which particles are vibrating is an objective reality; there will be a "true" speed at which the particles are vibrating. We have instruments that can measure this speed. Whether these measurements are accurate is beside the point. The point is that the vibration is an objective reality, as is the speed of the vibration. (At least as far as particles really exist; hence the problem of sussing out the three kinds if reality. If particles really exist, and if they really vibrate, then there will an objective speed at which they vibrate.)

As far as whether one thinks a particular speed of vibrating particles is "hot" or "cold" or "warm," that is subjective.

If that idea is too abstract, consider the speed of a car. A car will move at a speed that can be measured by a speedometer and both the car and its speed will exist in objective reality (given that cars really exist and can move).

Whether we think a given speed is fast or slow is subjective - that the car moves is an objective reality, as is the speed at which it moves.

Objective reality is not only composed of physical objectives but also how those physical objects behave and interact.

 

[Soupie]

would like to suggest again that a lot of weirdness that people see may all just be in their heads.

The UFO Iconoclast(s): Oliver Sacks, Hallucinations, and UFOs

The comments afterwards are also necessary and informative reading.

Great article. Thanks for sharing. And the comments afterward are indeed excellent.

One only need read about disorders like prosopagnosia (of which there are several) to recognize that while typically reliable, brain and central nervous system processes do go awry, chronically of course, but crucially, at times temporarily.

One of the things we struggle with is the idea that "perfectly sane, down-to-earth" people can have these fantastic experiences. We know they're not liars and we know they're not crazy, so what is going on? I think the above article captures what may be going on (in some cases, not all) quite nicely: temporary, albeit powerful, hallucinations that shape our subjective experiences of objective reality.

People wonder about the nature of these distortions; why did everything else appear normal, but their bodies/heads resembled insects!? While I'm not a brain expert, I do know that certain structures of the brain specialize in certain aspects of objective reality. Prosopagnosia is a perfect example of this; a distortion that only affects one's ability to recognize a face; the reason for this is that there is a specialized part of the brain that we use to recognize faces. Once that part of the brain malfunctions, our ability to identify faces is disrupted.

People also wonder about the power and vividness of these "reality distortions." However, many of us are witness to this ability of the brain every night as we have the most wonderful and confounding dreams. While the brain relies on the senses to pull in information regarding objective reality, the brain is quite capable of creating its own, vivid version of reality.

When we combine these two phenomena, distortions of reality and the brain's ability to fill in the blanks, it can produce some outlandish experiences.

The kicker is the likelihood that some of these "temporary reality distortions/hallucinations" can be brought on by external, environmental circumstances. The implications of this are that not one, but two, "perfectly sane, down-to-earth" people can experiences a very similar outlandish experience.

As we know - I recall Chris Obrien sharing this on the Paracast - many people who have these outlandish experiences are scared, confused, and embarrassed. And we can understand why. Chris went on to say that it may take these people time to share the full details of their experience as the full details are just so wild and extreme, i.e., seeing dog-headed people in trench coats smoking cigarettes under a streetlight.

Are such events objective reality, or are they the a result of specific, temporary hallucinations brought about in "sane" people by malfunctions in certain parts of their brain due to medications/drugs, onset of brain disease, tumors, environmental chemicals, magnetic fields, etc.? It may not account for all unexplained experiences, but it certainly must be considered for some (perhaps many) of them.

 

[Soupie]

Furthermore, another aspect of this phenomena has to do with the robustness of the brain. Computer engineers marvel at the resilience of the brain, but it may be this very resilience that leads to these outrageous experiences. Whereas when a computer malfunctions we get the blue screen of death, a brain simply keeps on chugging along as best it can. Can't identify faces any longer, can't form long term memories, can't see certain colors, can't process sound any longer, no longer have the ability to taste? No matter; the brain will simply do the best it can, regardless of how bizarre reality "becomes" for the mind/self.

While the brain certainly does go into "safe mode" at times, usually it just moves along as best it can (as this, presumably, through the lense of Evolution, was the most adaptable thing for it to do. If the brain completely shut off every time it experienced a "glitch" it would soon become a high protein diet for another creature.).

 

[manxman]

all this talk of hallucinations in 'sane people yada yada, how many people here have ever hallucinated, how here know someone who has hallucinated, nil and nil, ffs get a grip people.

 

[smcder]

I would, however, like to return to the idea that the experience of consciousness is pretty much always subjective, that it is influenced by many things including culture, past experiences, mostly recorded memories, personal conditioning and is very tied to what our perceptual apparatus is familiar with and routinely tries to make sense of reality, and any oddities experienced therein, by 'fudging the data' whenever it needs to in order to produce sensory experiences that make sense to the individual. So in truth,while there may be a great number of similarities in reports of objective reality, even those that science can routinely find a rough consensus on, we still all experience our own generalized, and smoothened out version of reality based on our individual experiences and training of how to experience objective reality. I routinely wear t-shirts around 5-10 degrees Celsius outside while others find this intolerable.

Consequently, there's a lot of odd paranormal experiences 'seen' by individuals that may have in fact very simple mundane answers. Though the science behind these outlandish reports may be tricky in its weaving, brain chemistry and its interactions with unique environments may in fact be producing collectively some of the unique paranormal experiences individuals claim to have, and these, hallucinations' may be shared with other nearby witnesses whose own biology and shared cultural conditioning are similar.

Time slips, ghosts, strange cryptids, dog-faced men, centaurs and UFO's may have some of their roots in biology and perception. I'm not excluding the opportunity for a unique stimulus like a nuts and bolts flying saucer to exist, but would like to suggest again that a lot of weirdness that people see may all just be in their heads.

The UFO Iconoclast(s): Oliver Sacks, Hallucinations, and UFOs

The comments afterwards are also necessary and informative reading.

It's a mixed bag with Sacks - he is a popular author and there is some criticism of his work:

A search on "oliver sacks criticism" brought up a number of articles and this is from Wikipedia:

Sacks has sometimes faced criticism in the medical and disability studies communities. During the 1970s and 1980s, his book and articles on the "Awakenings" patients were criticized or ignored by much of the medical establishment, on the grounds that his work was not based on the quantitative, double-blind study model. His account of abilities of autistic savants has been questioned by the researcher Makoto Yamaguchi,[24] and Daniel Tammet shared this view. According to Yamaguchi, Sacks' mathematical explanations are also irrelevant.[25] Arthur K. Shapiro—described as "the father of modern tic disorder research"[26]—referring to Sacks' celebrity status and that his literary publications received greater publicity than Shapiro's medical publications, said he is "a much better writer than he is a clinician".[27] Howard Kushner's A Cursing Brain?: The Histories of Tourette Syndrome, says Shapiro "contrasted his own careful clinical work with Sacks' idiosyncratic and anecdotal approach to a clinical investigation".[28]

More sustained has been the critique of his political and ethical positions. Although many characterise Sacks as a "compassionate" writer and doctor,[29][30][31] others feel that he exploits his subjects.[32] Sacks was called "the man who mistook his patients for a literary career" by British academic and disability-rights activist Tom Shakespeare,[33] and one critic called his work "a high-brow freak show".[34] Such criticism was echoed by a Sacks-like caricature played by Bill Murray in the film The Royal Tenenbaums.[35] Sacks has stated "I would hope that a reading of what I write shows respect and appreciation, not any wish to expose or exhibit for the thrill... but it's a delicate business."[36]

The Guardian has a good piece too:

Oliver Sacks: The visionary who can't recognise faces | Observer Profile | From the Observer | The Observer

 

[smcder]

all this talk of hallucinations in 'sane people yada yada, how many people here have ever hallucinated, how here know someone who has hallucinated, nil and nil, ffs get a grip people.

I worked about seven years in the mental health field and persons who do have severe mental illness and have hallucinations on a relatively regular basis do seem to become aware - sometimes after the episode but quite often during the episode, they know they are not well but the hallucinations are so compelling or terrifying that they have an effect but part of the mind seems to know it is a symptom - this happened just recently with a family member and I know another person who would actually talk to her hallucinations, there was a naked man in her closet and she would just say "excuse me, I need to get in here and get my clothes now" (knowing it was a hallucination) when this awareness is absent, the mental state very often is completely disordered so there would be no ability to make a coherent UFO report at the time and afterward it would be apparent what had happened. Again, this is persons living with severe and chronic mental illness and receiving some form of treatment over the long term.

Also, I would think a history of mental illness or hallucinations is a basic check-off on the list when doing an experiencer report or at some point in the investigation? It's certainly the first thing a skeptic would look for . . . I know that was something that John Mack was careful to account for - I believe I read that according to the tests available at the time, UFO abductees did not differ from the norm psychologically . . . is that correct?