Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Tyger]

If you've bought into the "ancient knowledge" fantasy and the Theosophical Society in particular, you're lost in the maze. You're sucking on Maya's hind teat, so to speak. "Bless your heart", as they say here in Texas.

I am well aware of a particular strand of thinking that views anything 'occult' as the 'spawn of the devil' - 'Satan's machinations'. My impression is that it comes out of the teachings/cautions of some Christian Fundamentalist sects. Has something to do with the reading/interpretation of the Bible - and, of course, has possibly a lot to do with the history of the church through the Middle Ages vis-a-vis the pagan and Gnostic influences being stamped out by the Inquisition.

 

[Tyger]

Now that Steve has reminded me to link the Forman paper, we can read it and discuss the question of whether the states he describes there might or might not be called 'mystical'. I don't know enough about 'mysticism' to know whether the states of consciousness he describes should be called mystical and would like to find out from others here who know more about the mystical and/or more about deep or altered states of consciousness that can be achieved through personal effort. I do know from reading the paper that the states Forman describes cannot be claimed to be "what we experience before the movie [in the so-called Cartesian theatre] begins."

I am hoping to access the link on the weekend and will give my thoughts then. Many thanks, Constance.

 

[Constance]

Yes, I'm familiar, I have thing here on my shelf, can't say I made it all the way through it. Although interesting, Jayne's theories are not generally accepted by his peers you know.

Hmm, I've read that, after long being rejected, Jaynes's theories have become more widely accepted among consciousness researchers.

Yes, people who take this bullshit too seriously can go stark raving mad. You can look at the lives of some of the people considered to be "Spiritual Giants" of one kind or another and see exactly where their psychotic breaks happened.

People who don't pursue 'this bullshit' also go stark raving mad, trained observer. From what you've said about your own experience (and a long recovery required from it), it would be enlightening for us if you would describe your experience. I've also read, and taken seriously, Tyger's repetition of the standard advice given to beginners in these practices to prepare themselves for dives into the deep end of consciousness. A friend of mine from our long-ago undergraduate years told me a few years ago that he had become interested back then in hypnotism, had been very good at putting people into hypnotic states, and had also put himself into hypnotic states. He said that he found himself going deeper and deeper into his consciousness until he reached a point at which he became frightened of going further and discontinued the practice. He is now a confirmed reductive materialist, a vigorous prosyletizer of atheism, and radically skeptical of all paranormal subject matter. What I see in all this is, in his case, an extreme reaction formation.

I highly suggest anything by U.G. Krishnamurti. The Mystique of Enlightenment is an excellent start. There is also an audio file someone put together called Give Up which I highly recommend even though the audio quality leaves much to be desired. A clearer take on "spirituality" you will be hard pressed to find.

I'm going to seek out the Krishnamurti text you mentioned. Thanks for the reference.

 

[trainedobserver]

I am well aware of a particular strand of thinking that views anything 'occult' as the 'spawn of the devil' - 'Satan's machinations'. My impression is that it comes out of the teachings/cautions of some Christian Fundamentalist sects. Has something to do with the reading/interpretation of the Bible - and, of course, has possibly a lot to do with the history of the church through the Middle Ages vis-a-vis the pagan and Gnostic influences being stamped out by the Inquisition.

No. Not my problem with occult knowledge/ancient knowledge/divine wisdom at all. That isn't even a consideration for me. On the contrary, I see no difference between Christian spiritual fantasies and any other.

I'm talking fraud, delusion, superstition, and primitive belief systems taken as Divine Wisdom or special knowledge.

 

[trainedobserver]

From what you've said about your own experience (and a long recovery required from it), it would be enlightening for us if you would describe your experience.

It's described in general terms somewhere in this forum in posting or two. Not to be evasive, but I honestly don't feel like mucking through it again. It's the typical raised in a religion, throw yourself into it, then wise up and wonder "What the f*&# was I thinking?" scenario.

A friend of mine from our long-ago undergraduate years told me a few years ago that he had become interested back then in hypnotism, had been very good at putting people into hypnotic states, and had also put himself into hypnotic states. He said that he found himself going deeper and deeper into his consciousness until he reached a point at which he became frightened of going further and discontinued the practice. He is now a confirmed reductive materialist, a vigorous prosyletizer of atheism, and radically skeptical of all paranormal subject matter. What I see in all this is, in his case, an extreme reaction formation.

People enter hypnotic states regularly, they just aren't aware of it. I became aware that I was going into hypnotic states in some church services and that some are in fact designed to do just that. Isn't that sweet of them? The most obvious was a particular Catholic funeral. I'm sure other ancient and modern organizations who utilize gatherings and assemblies employ similar staging, pacing, and audio stimulation to induce receptive states in their audiences as well.

I'm going to seek out the Krishnamurti text you mentioned. Thanks for the reference.

There is much that is said about U.G. that I think was him playing to his audience and simply f&*^ing with people. His central message is sound in my opinion. I also recommend Louis Brawley's Goner: The Final Travels of UG Krishnamurti for insights into the fellow from someone who was very close to him.

 

[trainedobserver]

People who don't pursue 'this bullshit' also go stark raving mad, trained observer.

By "bullshit" I meant higher states, divine wisdom from such, enlightenment, and so forth.

Eckhart Tolle and Sri Rammana Maharshi are two examples that come to mind. These two had specific moments you can point to as genuine psychotic breaks from which their alleged "spiritual wisdom" then started to flow.

Youtube is full of countless people who have run right off the end of the pier in pursuit of their spiritual goals.

From what you've said about your own experience (and a long recovery required from it), it would be enlightening for us if you would describe your experience. I

How long does it take to recover from indoctrination from your family and society that begins when you are a child? That's what I'm talking about. I still find myself praying to a god I no longer believe in out of sheer reflex. It's the whole ex-believer thing. We're like ex-smokers. Belligerent, cranky, and prickly at the smell of smoke.

As an aside: The entire planet has been at each others throats over ideologies and belief systems that were handed down to them as children. Or in a lot of cases, when adults find themselves in a childish state.

 

[Constance]

I am well aware of a particular strand of thinking that views anything 'occult' as the 'spawn of the devil' - 'Satan's machinations'. My impression is that it comes out of the teachings/cautions of some Christian Fundamentalist sects. Has something to do with the reading/interpretation of the Bible - and, of course, has possibly a lot to do with the history of the church through the Middle Ages vis-a-vis the pagan and Gnostic influences being stamped out by the Inquisition.

Well said, Tyger. I think all three sources you identify above have contributed to the aversion to 'the occult' and to the "ancient knowledge streams" you referred to above that led in part to the Blavatsky school and the Steiner departure from it. The last source you identified -- "the history of the church through the Middle Ages vis-a-vis the pagan and Gnostic influences being stamped out by the Inquisition" -- seems paramount to me. Trained observer has raised the significant issue of the risks of mental instability involved in unguided deep consciousness experimentation. Writ large, that risky individual experimentation parallels risks to and breakdowns of social stability at points in history when people on both sides of the experimentation act out in groups (the Cathars are one example; the Inquisition is another). We should never underestimate the influence on individuals of what is going on in the social world of any time or place. Milton wrote at the outset of Paradise Lost that "the mind is its own place and in itself/of itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven." I can't remember Paradise Lost well enough to recall whether he eventually worked out the extent to which individual minds are infected and destabilized by what goes on in the minds around them. Consciousness is clearly open, receptive to other consciousnesses, especially those we become emotionally involved with. This can lead, at one end of the spectrum of possibilities, to the utter beneficence of genuine 'I and Thou' love relationships (Martin Buber), and at the other end of the spectrum to the loss of self, the abdication of self, when an individual attaches himself or herself in submission to the dominant mind/consciousness of another.

We may be living toward an incipient integration of our species in moral terms, a point at which consciousness has evolved sufficiently enable all humans to live an "I and Thou" relationship with all other members of our species and even with other sentient species. The result would not be a 'hive mind' but a community of enlightened minds sharing a commitment to building and sustaining a transformed planetary society and a transformed earth-world. If that comes about it will be the result of the use of all our faculties, requiring both spiritual insight into our deep interconnection with others and the application of our intellectual skills to many practical tasks in changing the material conditions of life on earth at present.

A book I've meant to read for a long time is William James's A Pluralistic Universe, based on a series of lectures he presented in London and at Harvard toward the end of his life and career {during which he had developed his incipiently phenomenological 'radical empiricism'}. I've read the original lectures and I think we could obtain a better insight into how human consciousness evolves in medias res -- in the midst of faltering attempts by members of our species in all historical places and times to understand their own nature and to find a way to live together constructively and justly, morally. Here's a link to the book and a review at amazon that introduces it well. My only disagreement with the reviewer is that she objects to what she misidentifies as 'idealism' in philosophical terms. We could talk about that if anyone is interested.

William James's Pluralistic Universe Dec 20 2006
By Robin Friedman - Published on Amazon.com
Formataperback
William James is best-known for his development of the American philosophy of pragmatism and for his pioneering work in psychology. But in addition to pragmatism, which he described as a method and as a theory of truth, James expounded a broad philosophical doctrine which he called radical empiricism (pluralism). Radical pluralism, as James explained it, constituted a metaphysical position -- one describing the nature of reality -- rather than a method. In his book, "Pragmatism", James maintained that his commitment to radical empiricism was separate from his commitment to pragmatism; but in the Preface to his book, "The Meaning of Truth", James maintained that the success of the pragmatic account of truth was vital to making radical empiricism prevail.

James's fullest development of the theory of radical empiricism was in his book "A Pluralistic Universe" published in 1908. This book consists of the text of eight lectures James delivered in that year at London and at Harvard. In common with James's other works, "A Pluralistic Universe" attacks the monistic idealism derived from Hegel and followed by many of James's contemporaries in England and the United States, such as his colleague, Josiah Royce. But James goes much further than he had in his earlier writings. He offers a critique of logic, conceptual thinking and what he describes as "intellectualism" in philsophy. He urges a return to immediate experience as the basis for philosophical thinking. He develops a philosophy which is pluralistic and contingent -- which leaves room for chance, surprise, and moral action -- and which is essentially idealistic. The driving force behind the philosophy is spiritual, as James argues for panpsychism, pantheism, a finite god (or gods) and the possibility of growth.

James gives two philosophers a great deal of attention in developing his position. The first is the German thinker Gustav Fechner (Lecture IV in "A Pluralistic Universe"), who developed a theory of earth-soul holding that everything in the universe was alive with mind. Fechner's work became the basis of James's pansychism and of his theory of compounding consciousness -- that mind could grow from one thing to another and that there was an interrelationship between the human mind and the mind of a finite god. The second major influence on "A Pluralistic Universe" was the French philosopher Henri Bergson (Chapter VI). From Bergson, James described his critique of intellectualism and conceptual thinking. James argued that concepts were useful in understanding reality for limited purposes, (here James seems to be downplaying his own pragmatism) but that they ultimately distorted reality. Reality was a flow, a stream, in which one moment glided imperceptibly into the next and arose from a past moment. In this view of perception and reality, James rejected the atomistic, sensationalist view of experience of the British empiricists, describing this view as conceptualist in its own right. His view of consciousness was similar to that of another German philosopher, Edmund Husserl, who admired James greatly.

James best sets out the goal and the heart of his teaching in his opening lecture, "The Types of Philosophic Thinking." In this chapter, he stresses the importance of vision in philosophy -- the presentation of a convincing and inspiring view of life -- and downplays the importance of the arguments that are brought to bear in support of the vision. He also limits carefully the scope of his discussion. James at the outset rejects philosophies of materialism or scientism in favor of a philosophy that teaches that "the intimate and human must surround and underlie the brutal." He dscribes this teaching as the "spiritual" way of thinking.

James next distinguishes between a theistic conception of spiritualism which posits God as a creator separate from the universe and a pantheistic version, which argues that God is immanent as "the indwelling divine rather than the external creator, and of human life as part and parcel of that deep reality." James rejects the theistic position and opts instead for a pantheistic view of spirituality. It is important to see these self-imposed limitations on James's thought and to see as well how close James was to the absolute idealism of his day even when he criticized it severely. Hegel and Royce have, in spite of the criticisms he levelled at them, a large role in James's thought.

In the final lecture of "A Pluralistic Universe" James resumes themes he had raised earlier in "The Varieties of Religious Experience." He argues that accounts of individual religious experience suggest a way of approaching reality broader and more profound than anything that "paganism, naturalism, and legalism pin their faith on and tie their trust to." James argues that "the drift of all the evidence we have seems to me to sweep us very strongly towards the belief in some form of superhuman life with which we may, unknown to ourselves, be co-conscious. We may be in the universe as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all." James distinguishes his position from absolute idealism by working from the bottom up -- from individual, plural consciousness rather than from the top down -- from an abstract, intellectually conceived absolute. He advocates a philosophy of meliorism and activity in which individual persons work to bring the good to pass.

This book, James's last sustained work in philosophy, moves towards its own unique form of idealism and establishes James as a thinker in a large manner. The book seems to me to rest uneasily with his pragmatism at many places. "A Pluralistic Universe" is a provocative and moving work by a major American thinker.

 

[Constance]

It's described in general terms somewhere in this forum in posting or two. Not to be evasive, but I honestly don't feel like mucking through it again. It's the typical raised in a religion, throw yourself into it, then wise up and wonder "What the f*&# was I thinking?" scenario.

People enter hypnotic states regularly, they just aren't aware of it. I became aware that I was going into hypnotic states in some church services and that some are in fact designed to do just that. Isn't that sweet of them? The most obvious was a particular Catholic funeral. I'm sure other ancient and modern organizations who utilize gatherings and assemblies employ similar staging, pacing, and audio stimulation to induce receptive states in their audiences as well.

You also wrote: "I'm talking fraud, delusion, superstition, and primitive belief systems taken as Divine Wisdom or special knowledge."

I can't escape the sense that your personal experience with Catholicism has closed your mind to all religion and spirituality, all Eastern thought and 'mind work', and thus to all attempts to plumb the complexity of consciousness and what we can learn empirically from it about the nature of reality. Catholicism as it is practiced in our time didn't work for you, and its failure to work for you apparently led to a crushing disappointment that resulted in an abiding anger. I was raised as a Catholic too and attended Catholic schools through high school (Franciscans and Dominicans with the addition of Jesuit lectures on Apologetics in my senior year). The latter year-long lecture series was intended to strengthen our 'faith' as we went out into the world, but had the opposite effect for me: I 'lost my faith' in the Church's teachings and became an agnostic as I went off to college. I did not feel angry but instead relieved that I no longer had to try to make sense of, to integrate, the Catholic Church's interpretation of the world and all that I had so far learned about the world that was incommensurable with the Church's version of our history. It was a long time before I began to explore the differences between spirituality and religion as a consequence of pursuing the investigation of consciousness in interdisciplinary Consciousness Studies.

 

[Constance]

No. Not my problem with occult knowledge/ancient knowledge/divine wisdom at all. That isn't even a consideration for me. On the contrary, I see no difference between Christian spiritual fantasies and any other.

I'm talking fraud, delusion, superstition, and primitive belief systems taken as Divine Wisdom or special knowledge.

Re the bolded statement, that represents an answer to a whole other question than the negative affects of Christian dogma and devices that drove you away from the Church. On what basis do you claim that there is "no difference" between "Christian spiritual fantasies" and other spiritual insights and practices developed preeminently in the East? On what bases have you come to the determination that the latter are vested in "fraud, delusion, superstition, and primitive belief systems"? I think you need to make a case for your judgment that there are "no differences" in the range and type of experiences and thought involved in these various paths.

 

[Stagger Lee]

It's described in general terms somewhere in this forum in posting or two. Not to be evasive, but I honestly don't feel like mucking through it again. It's the typical raised in a religion, throw yourself into it, then wise up and wonder "What the f*&# was I thinking?" scenario.



People enter hypnotic states regularly, they just aren't aware of it. I became aware that I was going into hypnotic states in some church services and that some are in fact designed to do just that. Isn't that sweet of them? The most obvious was a particular Catholic funeral. I'm sure other ancient and modern organizations who utilize gatherings and assemblies employ similar staging, pacing, and audio stimulation to induce receptive states in their audiences as well.



There is much that is said about U.G. that I think was him playing to his audience and simply f&*^ing with people. His central message is sound in my opinion. I also recommend Louis Brawley's Goner: The Final Travels of UG Krishnamurti for insights into the fellow from someone who was very close to him.

Trained, Interesting that you mention organizations who might use audio stimulation to bring audiences to a hypnotic state. I believe I have witnessed these tactics during some concerts I've attended, from the muscians and sound engineers. The overall feeling I experienced during these performances was nothing short of pure pleasure. One particular band, in my opinion, perfected the experience through the 70's, 80's and early 90's. They were the "house band" for the Acid Tests of the late 60's before the substance was made illegal. Though, to be honest, it's hard for me to imagine someone able to go into such a state without the use of "some" type of substance- but obviously possible as we see through the hypnosis process itself.

 

[Constance]

Eckhart Tolle and Sri Rammana Maharshi are two examples that come to mind. These two had specific moments you can point to as genuine psychotic breaks from which their alleged "spiritual wisdom" then started to flow.

Yes, and the brilliant mathematician Godel had a psychotic breakdown as a result of the insights that led him to his two Incompleteness Theorems, which remain fundamentally problematic for mathematics today.

How long does it take to recover from indoctrination from your family and society that begins when you are a child? That's what I'm talking about. I still find myself praying to a god I no longer believe in out of sheer reflex. It's the whole ex-believer thing. We're like ex-smokers. Belligerent, cranky, and prickly at the smell of smoke.

As an aside: The entire planet has been at each others throats over ideologies and belief systems that were handed down to them as children. Or in a lot of cases, when adults find themselves in a childish state.

I don't have an answer for you as to how long it takes to overcome the kind of indoctrination you suffered. As I said, I felt a sense of relief at realizing I no longer had to try to integrate my own indoctrination with what I was learning in other disciplines. I suggest that you make an existential choice [an 'original choice', possible at any point in an individual life, in Sartre's philosophy] and just heave it all over the bridge. Just let it go and start over.

Yes, as you say, ideologies and belief systems can become consuming and distort (even obliterate) many peoples' innate capacity of openness to the world and critical reflection on what they learn through experience, reflection, and thought. We can recover that capacity alone or with others, but I think both are necessary. [We have often heard in communications from the other side, by postmortem surviving consciousnesses, that much 'time' is spent by postmortem consciousness in schools and libraries.] The issue seems to be achieving a balance between what we sense and feel and what we think. The thinking of reality is always 'on the way', never concluded, not here in the earth world or apparently beyond it. That thought alone might drive many people mad.

Addendum: Or we might just accept it.

 

[trainedobserver]

I don't have an answer for you as to how long it takes to overcome the kind of indoctrination you suffered. As I said, I felt a sense of relief at realizing I no longer had to try to integrate my own indoctrination with what I was learning in other disciplines. I suggest that you make an existential choice [an 'original choice', possible at any point in an individual life, in Sartre's philosophy] and just heave it all over the bridge. Just let it go and start over.

I guess I have to watch the rhetorical questions, but yes, I chucked it all long ago and let it all go and started over. None of it is a problem for me in any personal way anymore despite how I might come across in a forum. Other than like an ex-smoker, I sometimes want to get on my soapbox when discussing the subject. Part of that is recognizing that Randi is right, the promotion of woo-woo world-views is a bad thing and the cause of much misery in the world. I've seen that up close and personal.

 

[Constance]

As mentioned, the theatre of the mind example isn't to illustrate a belief or agreement with Cartesian Dualism as laid out in the illustration, so it's not important to go into the details of why Dennett created it.

I think it is important to do so, that we need to understand Dennett's appropriation of Descartes and his dualist philosophy to argue for an interpretation of consciousness that might not (I think probably does not) coincide with that of Descartes. It's especially important for you to do so if you are going to attempt to make so much rest on the notion of the 'Cartesian Theatre'.

What is important is that if we think of consciousness as being the observer ( experiencer of consciousness ) within such an arrangement, then the "contentless experience" mentioned in your post that led us here can be seen as the darkened theatre before the content ( the show ) begins. There is no more of a point or less of point to that illustration than this.

Again I disagree, but you would have to read Forman's paper as a whole to see that the term 'contentless' is recognized as a problematic term, as Forman demonstrates. We, as a group, will need to read Forman's paper (takes only 10-15 minutes) before we can discuss the different states he identifies.

You're the one who claimed that it had something to do with mysticism

here. So if you didn't know enough about the mystical to make that claim in the first place, why did you make it? Are you saying you'd like to revise or clarify that position? There seems to be some context that isn't getting clearly communicated.

I used the term because we use it here, without much attempt at definition, and because Forman uses it. I meant to say earlier, but perhaps did not, that I'm not sure we need to define those states as 'mystical' since they are also reached by people who not 'mystics'. The examples Forman uses are almost all Christian mystics, but he makes reference to a book he published in 1990 that includes other examples than the ones he writes about in the 1996 paper. I didn't actually "make a claim" about mysticism, as you seem to be arguing, but brought the paper to the attention of the thread because it develops some very specific differences in deep states of consciousness. I think we need to understand the characteristics of those different states if we are going to expand our understanding of the complexity of consciousness and its various 'levels' of content.

Perhaps upon reviewing my clarification ( above ), you might revise that opinion. If not, then I'd like to know your reasoning as to why. I don't see any other way to illustrate how a "contentless experience" might happen, It seems to correspond with my own experiences that were associated with similar practises ( meditation ). Are you suggesting that the types of meditative "contentless experiences" the people alluded to in the paper reported are of a different nature than the meditative "contentless experiences" I experienced, and therefore my assessment is somehow flawed?

I have no idea what experiences you had or how to evaluate the possible degree of 'contentlessness' you might have achieved, and claim to have achieved, in them. The interesting part of the Forman paper is his discussion of the continuing states of the Christian mystics he reports on and the variations in the ongoing awareness of the world external to the mind experienced by these people (also himself, as he reports on his own long meditation practice),

If so, what do you base that on? How could the purely subjective experiences of any particular individual be determined to be the same as those of another? It seems to me that we have to make certain assumptions based on similar patterns of behavior and action. I performed similar actions and got a result that cold be similarly described, except I don't see it as "mystical". Does that automatically mean it doesn't count? Are we only after experiences that people deem mystical, even if there isn't any identifiable difference between them?

You ask me at the outset whether I want to revise my assessment of your assessment of your own meditative experiences. But I can't assess (and haven't assessed) your experiences (you've described them only briefly in terms of colors -- black or white -- so there is not much there to work with). As for the rest of that segment of your post, I'm not interested only in experiences that can be/are called 'mystical'. I'm interested in understanding the various levels of awareness (of one's own consciousness and of the surrounding world) that are experienced by other humans and what they mean for our understanding of what consciousness is.

My usage of the Cartesian theatre example should now be clear enough to proceed. But just to be safe, it is used as an illustration of a particular way of looking at the role of consciousness and perception and isn't an endorsement of any particular model of either Dennett's or Descartes's. It simply associates consciousness with the observer ( the experiencer ) to what is going on in the theatre ( our virtual perceptual space ), in order to make the point that I don't think there is anything "mystical" about this as was claimed in your post.

I'm afraid your use of the term 'Cartesian Theatre' is still not clear. It seems to consist of an unproved {indeed an unargued) claim that consciousness operates only on the basis of ongoing perception, and that what is perceived via the human sensorium is only a 'virtual' reality. While perception of the world around us is a foundation for phenomenological consciousness of ourselves and the phenomenal world, perception is the beginning of our opening to the world as consciousness, from the basis of which consciousness moves to reflection on what has been experienced and then to thought proper about consciousness, mind, and the nature of reality. Moreover, as one link I provided earlier in this thread makes clear, consciousness in the infant and toddler is not a 'blank'; it functions early in prereflective awareness of the child's environment and becomes engaged in his or her attempts to work out the nature of the environment, the others in it, and the child's own relationship with both. You might think, then, that the 'film projected in the theatre' starts at birth, when the baby's senses open to light, sound, touch, smell, and taste. But that's not actually the case. The baby hears sounds issuing from outside the mother's womb; feels the amniotic fluid in which he or she floats and moves; no doubt tastes that fluid; and we have recently learned also senses and reacts to emotions expressed in the mother's environment, and also surely to her own state of mind and her feelings about her pregnancy and about the coming challenges and joys of motherhood. What the foetus knows by a certain point in its development comes to it through bodily consciousness, and the full-term baby comes into the world ready for the world in certain unmistakeable ways. Maybe you can fit all that into your particular idea of the 'theatre of consciousness', but I don't think you can define either the consciousness or the world involved in what happens as a 'virtual' reality. Life in the world, lived reality, is not like watching a film projected in a theatre.

 

[Constance]

Trained observer wrote: "None of it is a problem for me in any personal way anymore despite how I might come across in a forum. Other than like an ex-smoker, I sometimes want to get on my soapbox when discussing the subject."

That impulse to change other peoples' minds suggests to me that the Church indoctrination and the failed expectations you had from it are still a problem for you at some level. I know several guerilla atheists who cannot stop attacking religion, spirituality, the paranormal, and the very idea of God. I suspect many similar individuals regularly read Randi's and other radical skeptics' forums to obtain inoculations against slipping away from the 'new faith' (reductive materialism) with which they've tried to replace an old one. I hope that doesn't sound harsh, but I can find no other way to account for the immense amount of emotion (anger, contempt, and at times even rage) that some people invest in preaching their materialist gospel.

 

[trainedobserver]

Trained observer wrote: "None of it is a problem for me in any personal way anymore despite how I might come across in a forum. Other than like an ex-smoker, I sometimes want to get on my soapbox when discussing the subject."

That impulse to change other peoples' minds suggests to me that the Church indoctrination and the failed expectations you had from it are still a problem for you at some level. I know several guerilla atheists who cannot stop attacking religion, spirituality, the paranormal, and the very idea of God. I suspect many similar individuals regularly read Randi's and other radical skeptics' forums to obtain inoculations against slipping away from the 'new faith' (reductive materialism) with which they've tried to replace an old one. I hope that doesn't sound harsh, but I can find no other way to account for the immense amount of emotion (anger, contempt, and at times even rage) that some people invest in preaching their materialist gospel.

Well I can tell you the reason if you can believe it. People hate to be snookered and if they are good people, detest to see others have the wool pulled over their eyes as well, particularly in the matters of spirituality and religion by liars, con-men, delusional fantasists and the like. Take it or leave it.

But yes, I am a bit of the bitter ex-mystic, disappointed and disillusioned. Although I've toned down my anti-supernatural rants a great deal over the years, I apologize if I've offended or confused anyone.

 

[smcder]

here is the Pluralistic Universe by James from Project Gutenberg free in a variety of formats, including HTML and Kindle:

A Pluralistic Universe by William James - Free Ebook

. . .

A book I've meant to read for a long time is William James's A Pluralistic Universe, based on a series of lectures he presented in London and at Harvard toward the end of his life and career {during which he had developed his incipiently phenomenological 'radical empiricism'}. I've read the original lectures and I think we could obtain a better insight into how human consciousness evolves in medias res -- in the midst of faltering attempts by members of our species in all historical places and times to understand their own nature and to find a way to live together constructively and justly, morally. Here's a link to the book and a review at amazon that introduces it well. My only disagreement with the reviewer is that she objects to what she misidentifies as 'idealism' in philosophical terms. We could talk about that if anyone is interested.

I think this is the book or the lectures from James, available free from Project Gutenberg in a variety of formats (including Kindle):

A Pluralistic Universe by William James - Free Ebook

 

[smcder]

F.W.H. Myers, one of the Cambridge founders of the British Society for Psychical Research in the late 19th century, wrote a major study of consciousness and the paranormal (including analysis of scientific and artistic intuitions involving 'genius') still consulted and employed by psychologists, notably by the authors of Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the Twenty-First Century (see description below). Myers entitled his two-volume work Human Personality and the Survival of Bodily Death and it is available in whole online at Questia. A shortened version (including only volume 2) is available in an edition published by the physicist and consciousness researcher Russell Targ (see at amazon), but I recommend the unabridged two volumes. Irreducible Mind brings Myers's work into contemporary psychology and interdisciplinary consciousness studies and is described here:



The table of contents and extracts from the book can be read at amazon and provide a sense of the breadth of inquiry involved in Myers's work and carried forward into the exploration of consciousness in our time.

Project Gutenberg also has :
Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death by F. W. H. Myers
Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death by F. W. H. Myers - Free Ebook

it lists two works by Myers, F.W.H. but I only see one link - and I am not sure if that includes both volumes or just one . . .

 

[smcder]

. . .

Any "knowledge" supposedly gained through alleged "spiritual" means has historically proven to be absolutely worthless. This is a historic fact as well as my personal experience. You might as well throw dice and write fiction.

. . .

The Dice Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In praise of the aleatory life! I actually kept a dice in my car for a while . . .

 

[Constance]

I wrote: "Life in the world, lived reality, is not like watching a film projected in a theatre."

Ufology replied: The whole "what it's like" issue takes us back to Nagel. Because we're immersed in our virtual perceptual environment, we become one with the experience in a way analogous to how we become immersed in the action of a good movie. When we're in a theatre and have been drawn into the plot, the theatre itself along with the rest of the audience recedes into the background. We can snap ourselves out of this if we want and recognize our true situation, and we can do the same thing with the virtual space inside our heads. When we do this we realize that in addition to our perceptual space, there is also the phenomenon of experiencing it, and it was my impression that the paper was trying to emphasize that point via the example of the "contentless experience" ( We are equally aware when there is no content as we are when there is content, therefore consciousness isn't merely the display of content, but the experience of being there in the first place, which I compared to being in the darkened Cartesian theatre before the show starts.


Yes, the whole 'what it's like' does bring us back to Nagel, and it appears that you now understand and accept what Nagel was saying. Progress. And there's progress too in your bolded statement. I wonder if you will soon also abandon the notions that the mind is like a computer and that AI will be conscious. The only remaining problem seems to be your holding on to the concept of the 'Cartesian Theatre', which has been rejected by virtually all consciousness researchers including Dennett. You had seemed to be using the theatre concept to say that consciousness arises when "the show begins" in the theatre {when there is something flashing on the screen to be perceived}, but now you apparently recognize that consciousness persists despite the presence or absence of something perceptible. Thus it's there and aware before the show begins. Yes? So of what use is the theatre metaphor?

What the Forman paper succeeds in doing is demonstrating that among the forms in which contentless states can exist (be experienced and reported) there are cases in which those states are perpetuated indefinitely and coexist alongside the experient's somewhat muted awareness of, perception of, and activity in his or her day to day environment. The reason why this is interesting is that it suggests that a single consciousness can house or contain more than one stream of mental experience at once, almost as if there are two separate selves experiencing and operating simultaneously in one body. We are all, more or less, familiar with the continual drifting and changing and overlapping of perceptions, reflections, cognition, day-dreaming, etc., that take place in our experienced stream (single stream) of consciousness. But Forman's subjects appear to experience something radically different: a plurality of consciousnesses in one mind. Read the whole paper. Let me know what you think of what Forman brings forward for consideration of what consciousness is, of what it might be, of what its relationship to the world might be.

 

[Constance]

Ufology, you also wrote: "As a reminder, it would help me understand where you're coming from much better if you could quote a specific example of a, "state of a Christian Mystic", and how it relates to the, "variations in their ongoing awareness" and why you see those examples as particularly relevant to you or this discussion.

The experiences Forman discusses are all (or mostly) experiences of deep states -- contentless and also in some cases maintaining contentlessness alongside content and agency involving the environment -- achieved by Christian mystics. I don't doubt that such states are also achieved by non-Christian mystics and non-mystics. Also, I should have been clearer when I referred to "variations in their ongoing awareness." What I meant to convey is that Forman discusses various examples of deep states, some entirely contentless, some including an ongoing self-awareness, and some in which both a contentless state and an ordinary state of perception and interaction in the world beyond the mind coexist.