Consciousness and the Paranormal

[smcder]

Sounds like Bigfoot.

Scrutiny not ridicule . . . (waggles finger gently and warmly)

 

[Soupie]

"simply the raw unconscious" - at this point, how can it be any one thing without all of us being wrong?

Oh, I think @trainedobserver summed it up well.

What is this drive to reduction?

Well, quite frankly, I do think things reduce. More practically, I simply don't think humans understand enough about the material world to appeal to the existence of a non-material world.

In fact, I have a problem with the concept of the "super" natural. If it is indeed "above/beyond" the natural material world, how can we interact with it? I suppose one might say: because we are supernatural too! Our "spirit" is supernatural.

Reality --> []

Everything that exists: thoughts, emotions, crayons, atoms, strings, vibrations, toothpaste, concepts, ideas, love, milk, UFOs go inside this box: --> []

I'm not going to argue that everything is made out of matter/energy, but whatever matter/energy are made out of is what everything is made of. (Of course, I could be wrong about that...)

Natural + Supernatural = Reality

And what is the unconscious?

I think of the unconscious as that thing that drives your car when you're busy fiddling with the radio, look up, and realize you've driven 10 miles.

 

[trainedobserver]

Scrutiny not ridicule . . . (waggles finger gently and warmly)

Just an observation. Not judging, mind you.

 

[smcder]

Oh, I think @trainedobserver summed it up well.

Well, quite frankly, I do think things reduce. More practically, I simply don't think humans understand enough about the material world to appeal to the existence of a non-material world.

In fact, I have a problem with the concept of the "super" natural. If it is indeed "above/beyond" the natural material world, how can we interact with it? I suppose one might say: because we are supernatural too! Our "spirit" is supernatural.

Reality --> []

Everything that exists: thoughts, emotions, crayons, atoms, strings, vibrations, toothpaste, concepts, ideas, love, milk, UFOs go inside this box: --> []

I'm not going to argue that everything is made out of matter/energy, but whatever matter/energy are made out of is what everything is made of. (Of course, I could be wrong about that...)

Natural + Supernatural = Reality

I think of the unconscious as that thing that drives your car when you're busy fiddling with the radio, look up, and realize you've driven 10 miles.

Well, quite frankly, I do think things reduce. More practically, I simply don't think humans understand enough about the material world to appeal to the existence of a non-material world.

Well, quite frankly, I do think things reduce.

Please, be frank! And earnest, it's important. But that's an assumption you have to hold to the side (as a working hypothesis it's OK) until we do know enough about the material world.

More practically, I simply don't think humans understand enough about the material world to appeal to the existence of a non-material world.

First, who's appealing? And second, will we ever know enough about the material world to appeal to the existence of a non-material world?

In fact, I have a problem with the concept of the "super" natural. If it is indeed "above/beyond" the natural material world, how can we interact with it? I suppose one might say: because we are supernatural too! Our "spirit" is supernatural.

I have exactly the same problem!

Everything that exists: thoughts, emotions, crayons, atoms, strings, vibrations, toothpaste, concepts, ideas, love, milk, UFOs go inside this box: --> []

Then what is your box made of?

I'm not going to argue that everything is made out of matter/energy, but whatever matter/energy are made out of is what everything is made of. (Of course, I could be wrong about that...)

I'm glad you make the distinction and recognize that last bit . . . a lot of people miss that one.

I think of the unconscious as that thing that drives your car when you're busy fiddling with the radio, look up, and realize you've driven 10 miles.

Sounds a lot like the difficulty in defining "God"/god/mother-source.

I think I like "mother-source" best for now.

 

[Soupie]

And for those of you who are going to ask what the [] is in... --> []

Just kidding. But I have been waiting for the right time to (perhaps) introduce Mr. Langan and CTMU:

Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1952) is an Americanautodidact with an IQ reported to be between 195 and 210.[1] He has been described as "the smartest man in America" by the media.[2] Langan has developed a "theory of the relationship between mind and reality" which he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)".[3][4] via Wikipedia

CTMU is the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. I'll warn you right now, it's a hard read.

I've read it, digested it, and I like it. It works for me. It answers the question above.

The real universe has always been theoretically treated as an object, and specifically as the composite type of object known as a set. But an object or set exists in space and time, and reality does not. Because the real universe by definition contains all that is real, there is no "external reality" (or space, or time) in which it can exist or have been "created". We can talk about lesser regions of the real universe in such a light, but not about the real universe as a whole. Nor, for identical reasons, can we think of the universe as the sum of its parts, for these parts exist solely within a spacetime manifold identified with the whole and cannot explain the manifold itself. This rules out pluralistic explanations of reality, forcing us to seek an explanation at once monic (because nonpluralistic) and holistic (because the basic conditions for existence are embodied in the manifold, which equals the whole). Obviously, the first step towards such an explanation is to bring monism and holism into coincidence.

 

[smcder]

Just an observation. Not judging, mind you.

I'm not sure you can help it! ;-)

Seriously, I do think ridicule is corrosive - to the one doing the ridiculing. And I am not seriously accusing you of ridicule . . . but now that the topic is on the table, it's been on my mind a lot, in terms of me paying attention to when I do it.

And this is all an interesting turn, because what I think I've said - and yes, I've been a bit coy, is only that I have some experiences and concepts around the idea God that I can't dismiss into any of the categories so far listed . . . which is a bit like Bigfoot and very much like the way most people have expressed their ultimate feelings about the paranormal - something about how they feel something is going on and they don't have a complete explanation yet for it . . . could it be some trick of evolution that at one time served for our survival? Very surely. Is that an exclusive explanation? No. Does it surely follow if it is the one thing, it's not the other . . . ?again, I've heard this before . . . Greg Bishop's idea of the excluded middle. But the word God fired off a lot of reaction to things I don't think I said . . .

Now, for all that - do I have a persistent sense of God? Yes, I do. Could it be illusory? Yes, it could. But the history of religion includes a long and venerated history of doubt:

Browse Inside Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson by Jennifer Hecht

. . . perhaps some day we will look back on religion and see that it's purpose was to bring us to science but somehow, I think that is a very confused notion.

 

[smcder]

And for those of you who are going to ask what the [] is in... --> []
Just kidding. But I have been waiting for the right time to (perhaps) introduce Mr. Langan and CTMU:

CTMU is the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. I'll warn you right now, it's a hard read.

I've read it, digested it, and I like it. It works for me. It answers the question above.

I've read it too! Or perhaps (two) as we may be the only ones who have . . . I thought some of your notions were familiar.

I think it's great that Langan is (or was) a bouncer . . . it gives me hope!

It's a hard read - but I think anyone as smart as he is could have written it more clearly, so I suspect an ulterior motive.

 

[smcder]

Look at those guns! The great thing is, that as a bouncer (and a genius) - he would probably talk you into leaving quietly before you realized what happened.

 

[Burnt State]

Such enjoyable discourse profits the mind and inflates the spirit.

The divine can only reside in the other, and perhaps in those rare moments of absolute nothingness. That's why we seek.

Paradox is the place where expansion begins. I agree, the vocabulary is limited. But speaking with schizophrenics and artists is far more engaging that Wittgenstein's silence. The words themselves are a curse. Them words are elves in a hearse.

As for making contact, or creating things when you are not present, I could be convinced by the limits of human experience that we are always the source of everything. But in those moments of absence of self, and you are wired to a far off flowing river, there is a kind of magic to be had, that I've seen so infrequently, I refuse, for this moment to call it human.

 

[smcder]

Ufology would love this guy . . . might actually keep him busy for a while . . .

 

[smcder]

Such enjoyable discourse profits the mind and inflates the spirit.

The divine can only reside in the other, and perhaps in those rare moments of absolute nothingness. That's why we seek.

Paradox is the place where expansion begins. I agree, the vocabulary is limited. But speaking with schizophrenics and artists is far more engaging that Wittgenstein's silence. The words themselves are a curse. Them words are elves in a hearse.

As for making contact, or creating things when you are not present, I could be convinced by the limits of human experience that we are always the source of everything. But in those moments of absence of self, and you are wired to a far off flowing river, there is a kind of magic to be had, that I've seen so I frequently, I refuse, for this moment to call it human.

The divine can only reside in the other . . .

How do I break you people of this habit?? It's the mother-source of all purple prose!

Some believe Wittgenstein had a touch of the schizophrenia, at any rate - he didn't remain silent long.

As for making contact, or creating things when you are not present, I could be convinced by the limits of human experience that we are always the source of everything. But in those moments of absence of self, and you are wired to a far off flowing river, there is a kind of magic to be had, that I've seen so I frequently, I refuse, for this moment to call it human.

Very good! And very brave . . . and I've claimed even less here, to refuse to call it entirely human . . . at least, I didn't mean to (claim anymore).

 

[trainedobserver]

I am just interested in discerning fact from fiction in the matter. "God talk" is always about ultimate truths and absolutes. Truth with a capital T. However, it is my unending experience that it is anything but. Perhaps I've been to too many funerals lately, and heard too many pronouncements of eternal truth that sound like they were lifted from poorly plotted comic books. These things should be celebrations of the life lived (if at all possible in some cases) and not commercials for superstitious world-views that I know with great certainty (because I've done the research) are fictions adapted from even earlier fictions and shoe-horned into someone's artful theological fancy for what often can only be described as ulterior motives. But I rant! Forgive me. Jesus save us from the fires of [this] hell!

 

[trainedobserver]

I've read it too! Or perhaps (two) as we may be the only ones who have . . . I thought some of your notions were familiar.

I think it's great that Langan is (or was) a bouncer . . . it gives me hope!

It's a hard read - but I think anyone as smart as he is could have written it more clearly, so I suspect an ulterior motive.

I haven't read that, but I have read Mysticism.

 

[smcder]

I am just interested in discerning fact from fiction in the matter. "God talk" is always about ultimate truths and absolutes. Truth with a capital T. However, it is my unending experience that it is anything but. Perhaps I've been to too many funerals lately, and heard too many pronouncements of eternal truth that sound like they were lifted from poorly plotted comic books. These things should be celebrations of the life lived (if at all possible in some cases) and not commercials for superstitious world-views that I know with great certainty (because I've done the research) are fictions adapted from even earlier fictions and shoe-horned into someone's artful theological fancy for what often can only be described as ulterior motives. But I rant! Forgive me. Jesus save us from the fires of [this] hell!

Perhaps I've been to too many funerals lately, and heard too many pronouncements of eternal truth that sound like they were lifted from poorly plotted comic books.

Fair enough - just don't put all that on me! ;-)

I hate funerals. I've made my wife promise to burn me out in the yard - we have a large burn barrel and, dismembered, I will easily fit now that I have lost 40 pounds. I actually had a kind of Viking funeral in mind, but I don't have access to a pond anymore.

 

[smcder]

I am just interested in discerning fact from fiction in the matter. "God talk" is always about ultimate truths and absolutes. Truth with a capital T. However, it is my unending experience that it is anything but. Perhaps I've been to too many funerals lately, and heard too many pronouncements of eternal truth that sound like they were lifted from poorly plotted comic books. These things should be celebrations of the life lived (if at all possible in some cases) and not commercials for superstitious world-views that I know with great certainty (because I've done the research) are fictions adapted from even earlier fictions and shoe-horned into someone's artful theological fancy for what often can only be described as ulterior motives. But I rant! Forgive me. Jesus save us from the fires of [this] hell!

I am just interested in discerning fact from fiction in the matter.

The indisputable facts are that I have a persistent sense of something ultimate that I associate with the way I use the word God and that word does seem, to me, to have some basic or core meaning, enough to stay in the language and enough to trigger all kinds of interesting reactions.

The indisputable part is that I have this "sense" and that the word so seems to me . . . but, like I said, you gotta have faith that I'm not lying to you about what I experience or we get no where.

 

[Soupie]

It's a hard read - but I think anyone as smart as he is could have written it more clearly, so I suspect an ulterior motive.

Interesting. He does try to explain it elsewheres about the internets. Also, he doesn't have the greatest social skills. Hard life or just tired of explaining things?

Here is my (perhaps wrong) understanding of some of it:

As I understand it, Langan is saying that "in the beginning" there was only raw potential. One couldn't say there was "nothing" because you'd have to explain why there was nothing, as opposed to something. There was neither. The only thing that did "exist" was the potential for something to exist.

However, the only things that could "actualize", were things that had a structure which would allow them to "create and configure" themselves. And since in the groundstate of raw potential, anything had the potential to exist, inevitably, something did "eventually" exist which could configure itself.

It's a brilliant concept for many reasons. One reason I like it so much is that it gets rid of the infinite regress paradox we get with an external creator, i.e., if God created the universe, who created God? Or if God is external to our universe/reality, what universe/reality is he in (and where did it come from). What Langan is saying is that "for an external creator to create reality, the creator itself would have to be real, and therefore inside reality by definition, contradicting the premise."

The other reason I like this is it provides a "reason" for why the universe is ordered: that is, why we two or more people can have consistent perceptions. The universe is a self-consistent structure - it had to be in order to "actualize" from raw potential - and because it is, other structured systems were able to form "inside" of it, such as galaxies, solar systems, planets, weather systems, and organic systems such as life.

As Langan explained it, nothing can exist without structure (constraint is a kind of structure). So when you "take away" everything with structure, all you have is the potential for something (or the potential for nothing).

Langan argues that with ubt - unbound telesis/potential - something with self-sustaining structure will inevitably actualize. He's not arguing that the universe as is just actualized. What did arise was a structure that was able to sustain itself.

You might say: but what are the chances of that? Well, if you've got an infinite supply of potential, the chances are good, inevitable even.

It has always bothered me that people assume there was once nothing. Why not always something. Better yet, always the potential for nothing and something. From this potential, something emerges.

And no, I don't think this concept is "the truth."

 

[trainedobserver]

I am just interested in discerning fact from fiction in the matter.

The indisputable facts are that I have a persistent sense of something ultimate that I associate with the way I use the word God and that word does seem, to me, to have some basic or core meaning, enough to stay in the language and enough to trigger all kinds of interesting reactions.

The indisputable part is that I have this "sense" and that the word so seems to me . . . but, like I said, you gotta have faith that I'm not lying to you about what I experience or we get no where.

I understand exactly what you are talking about Steve. I have experienced it myself. I just don't think it is what it appears at first to be.

 

[smcder]

I understand exactly what you are talking about Steve. I have had experienced it myself. I just don't think it is what it appears at first to be.

What in the source-mother makes you think I am going with first appearances . . . ?

 

[trainedobserver]

What in the source-mother makes you think I am going with first appearances . . . ?

Uh, urrr, or what it might present as. How is that?

"The Source" is a used a pseudonym for L. Ron Hubbard in the Scientology cult, b.t.w.

 

[smcder]

Interesting. He does try to explain it elsewheres about the internets. Also, he doesn't have the greatest social skills. Hard life or just tired of explaining things?

Here is my (perhaps wrong) understanding of some of it:

It has always bothered me that people assume there was once nothing. Why not always something. Better yet, always the potential for nothing and something. From this potential, something emerges.

And no, I don't think this concept is "the truth."

Hard life or just tired of explaining things?

He might be tired of explaining things - if having a high IQ makes things obvious to him, but I know plenty of very smart people who never tire of explaining even things that are obvious to most.

If he has had a hard life, it's also re-assuring to know that IQ is no protection from the vagaries of this toilsome world.

I know it's a summary, so it's not fair to hold you to it - and I should go back and read the original (painful, painful) but I can't get all the circularity out of the below, or see how it doesn't answer questions by putting other questions in the form of a statement . . . or substituting "raw potential" for creator/"God"/god/mother-source . . . so maybe I do need to re-read or find his explanations of it.

It has always bothered me that people assume there was once nothing. Why not always something. Better yet, always the potential for nothing and something. From this potential, something emerges.

Right - but the ur-question is why is there anything at all? But I'm not sure that makes "sense".

And - "potential" here (again, I know it's a summary) looks an awful lot like the God of the Deists.