January 24, 2016 — Dr. Kirby Surprise

[Constance]

Constance, if it turns out to be true it will probably put at end to most of our differences of opinion on a number of topics and we can take some time to sip quantum tea and talk about Wallace Stevens.

A consummation devoutly to be wished.

 

[Sequel]

Be careful, trying to pitch a sense of the world referenced from the perspective of the human mind. I think the mind can perturb reality to a certain extent, but reality in terms of the physical environment are present. No doubt, that there is irregularities in the physical world that we do not fully understand - and we can reasonably assume with some confidence that these can be monitored independently of the human mind. My issue, is not whether these anomalies exist or not - it is the way they are perceived by our minds that is incorrect. There is ample of evidence to show the mind can be extremely fallable in interpretation of what reality is, especially in memory, but there is an equal underestimation in understanding how powerful and sensitive it can be.
I suppose the way to discern and distill the effects (the human factor interference) is omit the human and allow the recording of light/temp/moisture etc by instrumentation. I think this data especially visual is too scarce to confirm or deny my beliefs. But the human mind has contaminated this field over the years, and you need to verify if the mind is secreting the pollution in which it then toxicates in - is this a + feedback or - feedback system or is there another source?

 

[Constance]

Be careful, trying to pitch a sense of the world referenced from the perspective of the human mind. I think the mind can perturb reality to a certain extent, but reality in terms of the physical environment are present.

I follow you halfway. Yes, the world is physically real, but it is too vast and too complex in its structure and processes for us to see and understand it fully. What we bring to it is equally real, however -- our capabilities of sensing it and perceiving it, which began at the root level of the evolution of species of life on our planet, in the sensing and gradual development of sensual perception by organisms evolved to this point in time as we know it (and perhaps at one or more earlier epochs of prehistory here and elsewhere). What we bring, at this point in our species' evolution, is the ability to interpret the nature of our local world, of the cosmos in general, and of how it is that we become able to investigate and contemplate our origins and the nature of the 'world' in which we and other animals exist and eventually the structure of the universe/cosmos beyond. Yes, our perceptions are limited by the presuppositions we bring to our experience in the world, but without our senses, our perceptions, and the minds that grow out of them the physical world would remain what phenomenologists refer to as 'brute being', a trackless depth of physical being unseen and unthought and to that extent 'unrealized'. Consciousness, in ourselves and other animals, is the opening between our own subjectivity and the objective properties of the purely physical dimension of the world we inhabit and find our way through on the basis of what we encounter phenomenologically, in things that we can see only perspectivally. In building a fund of knowledge concerning the objective properties and aspects of nature we multiply our perspectives on 'what-is' to approach closer to an understanding of it. But the world exceeds us on every side and we are often constrained by our presuppositions about the nature of reality. Consciousness is a second ontological primitive in the local worlds in which it evolves. There might be a more profound, interconnected, form of consciousness in being of which our own consciousness is part. One thing I think is certain -- that we need to come to an understanding that individual and species consciousness, wherever it evolves in nature, is likely to be only partial in its insights and understanding of 'reality'.

No doubt, that there is irregularities in the physical world that we do not fully understand - and we can reasonably assume with some confidence that these can be monitored independently of the human mind. My issue, is not whether these anomalies exist or not - it is the way they are perceived by our minds that is incorrect. There is ample of evidence to show the mind can be extremely fallable in interpretation of what reality is, especially in memory, but there is an equal underestimation in understanding how powerful and sensitive it can be.

I suppose the way to discern and distill the effects (the human factor interference) is omit the human and allow the recording of light/temp/moisture etc by instrumentation. I think this data especially visual is too scarce to confirm or deny my beliefs. But the human mind has contaminated this field over the years, and you need to verify if the mind is secreting the pollution in which it then toxicates in - is this a + feedback or - feedback system or is there another source?

I think we cannot understand the structure of 'reality' by omitting what you call the "human factor," the limitations on our thinking arising from presuppositions that need to be 'bracketed' (in Husserl's term) if we are to build understanding from the phenomenal appearances of things, which surely vary between one species and another. In the later part of your post you seem to see some of the perspectives brought to the interpretation of the 'mere objectiveness of things' as "contamination" and "pollution" that distorts 'things-in-themselves', but we've recognized since Kant that we can't know 'things in themselves, the ding an sich'. And so we must study our own consciousness and mind in addition to what we seek to understand in terms of the objectivity of things. In phenomenology, the subjective and objective are poles of a single reality, which is the 'reality' in which we exist. Materialist/objectivist science (and some modern philosophy that has accepted its paradigm) rests on presuppositions that must be bracketed if we are ever to understand the sources of what we 'know' not only consciously but also subconsciously, and this is the deepest challenge confronted by the new interdisciplinary field of Consciousness Studies.

 

[Polterwurst]

I am pretty much convinced that this line of thinking is providing a more factual analysis of what some of these 'paranormal' events are - especially in the realm of religion/spirituality/life after death.

It might also provide a good explanation why skeptics will find more and more evidence for the non-objectivity of these events. And ignore genuine anomalies, because the world they perceive also mirrors their belief in the non-existence of these penomena. If it works, it should work both ways.

The "mirroring" effect might explain the unfounded, exaggerated belief in a paranormal worldview, no question. But there are people who have the amazing ability of self-critical thinking (yup, it's possible) who still experience things they can't easily explain away. I think there's many people here on the forum and in the whole field of the "paranormal" who fall into that category and who are absolutely not just "watching their own mirror image". Unfortunately, these more critical voices get lumped in with the "noisy true believer crowd", though.

I can only say that in my own case (which was "in the realm of religion/spirituality/life after death", a fact that surprised me very much, because I had dismissed it years before), there was no predisposition or will to believe. I was and mostly still am an agnostic. The anomalies showed up unwantedly and out of the blue. Looking into them, I was always very wary of the possibility of wishful thinking and self-delusion. At various points in the first years, I was convinced I was overreacting and there was really nothing to it all. Still, more evidence came up, until after many years I just couldn't ignore it any longer.

Actually I don't know why the guy who thought god spoke to him through a TV set should be more deluded than someone who thinks that his own consciousness alters reality. If they are not just very improbable but meaningless coincidences, synchronicities might be caused by the observer himself or some outside force, or it might be both at the same time. None of these theories seems the more valid to me.

All in all, this was an interesting but kind of confusing interview. Looks like Dr Surprise is sitting "between all chairs", reductionist and materialistic on the one hand, and at the same time saying that there are genuine meaningful coincidences, which we create ourselves. He probably catches flak from both the paranormal believers and the debunkers.

He didn't go into his speculation of "natural technology", which I can understand but I'd have liked to hear more about it. I guess that's where these seemingly contradicting worldviews come together. Maybe it's something along the lines that consciusness is like the IT of the universe. Well, I always thought of technology as something that was created by someone. So, would be nice if he thinks it could just have evolved from nothing.

 

[Constance]

I suppose the way to discern and distill the effects (the human factor interference) is omit the human and allow the recording of light/temp/moisture etc by instrumentation.

Measuring 'things' in the world objectively, with instruments, certainly provides us with information about the world we exist in (and have evolved out of), but it is not enough to describe all phenomena we encounter and have encountered historically and even prehistorically. Consciousness research includes biologists, affective neuroscientists, dissipative systems theorists, and neurophenomenologists who study the evolution of awareness and cognition in natural species of life. We know much in the body before we know it in the brain, and the subconscious mind cannot be accounted for in cognitive neuroscience, at least at the level of its development so far. Jaak Panksepp, a biologist and neuroscientist who founded the discipline of Affective Neuroscience, has influenced consciousness studies to a considerable extent by recognizing that the feeling level of experience precedes and informs the gradual development of protoconsciousness, consciousness, and mind in the evolution of species as in the development of human infants and children. Meaning arises first in what is felt, well before language and categorical thinking are developed. Phenomenological philosophy has recognized this for more than a century, identifying the key differences between -- and the integral relationship of -- prereflective consciousness and reflective consciousness, out of which mind itself develops. The difficulty is in understanding prereflective consciousness and the subconscious mind that grows out of it, which accrues and stores collective memories of more direct experiences of being-in-the-world on the part of our own species and those that preceded us. It is out of that ground that spirituality develops, and it is that ground that supports the growth of psychic faculties in humans and some animals. So I conclude that there is much about the natural world that has borne us and all living beings into conscious/subconscious existence that can only be understood subjectively -- beyond those objective substances and processes that can be measured objectively.

 

[Constance]

You might then ask 'how can we study subjectivity', and I would answer that we have done so over the last 150 years in investigations of psychic phenomena, parapsychology, paranormal studies, and depth psychology, all marginalized by materialist/objectivist science into our own time. Phenomenologists pursuing consciousness and neuroscience have also developed a new discipline, neurophenomenology, pursuing new means through which to understand what the subconscious contributes to experiences especially of a transhuman and psychic nature.

 

[Wade]

Listening to NPR Saturday edition and the story is about a Walmart Express leaving a small town in North Carolina where the residents now have to the drive 15 miles to the nearest Piggly Wiggly at that exact moment my eyes caught a Businessweek article I was reading about Sprint Telecom's woes and I got to the part where Sprint is a descendent of Brown Telephone founded by Cleyson Brown who also had a hand in starting Piggly Wiggly. This isn't the slightest bit meaningful to me so not a synchronicity also not the least bit unusual. The timing was delicious

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Oh yes, curious.

It's been years since I heard use of the name Piggly Wiggly. I thought it was a dumb name when I lived in South Carolina and it was the closest supermarket.

As to Walmart Express, supposedly the smaller version was not successful. So it'll be mostly the Neighborhood Market and the Supercenter from here on. There are six of either of the latter within 10-15 minutes of here. Too much Walmart.

 

[Wade]

I was still in single digits age wise when i picked up on the fact that certain ideas,thought or concepts would just enter my mind and mere seconds later that concept or thought would appear in one way or another.

Later on as i became aware of the concept that life could be pre-ordained (which i never fully embraced) i did contemplate that perhaps i/we did live a preordained life and maybe these coincidences that constantly popped up happened because "spiritually" i arrived a little bit early at the point that i was destined to be at. That is instead of the object firing off the thought, the thought was firing off the object and hence i must be running early.

 

[Tyger]

I regret that I cannot listen to the episode as it sounds intriguing based on all the comments.

I thought Kirby's findings were interesting , that we have the capacity to while not exactly alter our reality we can increase the probability of something happening that we think about by 3%-6%. in fact i've been of the mind of late that is what happens when things that can't be scientifically or medically explained happens without reason. I am of the thought that when a miracle happens that something on the order of what Kirby was talking about happens due to collective synchronized thinking and perhaps if something feels like destiny that is a singular person bumping up his or her odds that something of a personal nature will happen and becoming a self fulfilling prophecy thus giving the sense of destiny.

There is very little to go on from the comments, but from your remarks above I am reminded of the extensive literature - and experience - in the New Thought Movement at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century. Christian Science is part of this stream. Innumerable 'manifestation' teachers attest to - what is for them - the fact that we create what happens to us and what we are. (Neville Goddard - found on YouTube - is a premier example of this line of thinking).

 

[Sequel]

The "mirroring" effect might explain the unfounded, exaggerated belief in a paranormal worldview, no question. But there are people who have the amazing ability of self-critical thinking (yup, it's possible) who still experience things they can't easily explain away. I think there's many people here on the forum and in the whole field of the "paranormal" who fall into that category and who are absolutely not just "watching their own mirror image". Unfortunately, these more critical voices get lumped in with the "noisy true believer crowd", though.

I can only say that in my own case (which was "in the realm of religion/spirituality/life after death", a fact that surprised me very much, because I had dismissed it years before), there was no predisposition or will to believe. I was and mostly still am an agnostic. The anomalies showed up unwantedly and out of the blue. Looking into them, I was always very wary of the possibility of wishful thinking and self-delusion. At various points in the first years, I was convinced I was overreacting and there was really nothing to it all. Still, more evidence came up, until after many years I just couldn't ignore it any longer.

You dont need to be surprised, as long as you had an awareness of that possibility - whether you believe it or not. Even in dreams your mind can cook up all kinds of curiosities, that are usually referenced from your cultural experience - and these can be some of the most unlikely and unbelievable states. I think sleeping/dreaming is the closest we get to death in our living minds - when the physical body is baselining.
I suppose i am an agnostic, although i do sympathise with religion to a large extent - not because of its meaning or even its beliefs and theology and superstitions, but because of its more pragmatic technology of manipulation of society. It is after all, the forefather of modern law. Creating an omnipotent agent (however fictituous) as an overall referee which has everybodies interests at heart, that cannot be affected by other people is an extremely powerful management tool - not one that opponents of religion (atheists) can replace. Of course, every technology can be used for good and bad. Look at money - another fictitious belief system.

 

[Tyger]

Very interesting episode. I wonder if dr. Kirby has studied the works of Rudolf Steiner. ..

Could you detail what makes you say this, kanakaris?

 

[Constance]

If darwinism is understood in its completion, we are exactly composed of the same bulding blocks and chemical components, strands of DNA and Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine as every other living creature on the planet. How can 1 recipe be unique and so special -

We're not that special actually. We have obtained aegis here over the other animals and the conditions of their existence, but we come from the same basic building blocks, as you say. The evolution of species on earth has also been the evolution of consciousness, and there are many other species beside our own that are conscious. If we were actually 'special' we would have recognized that long ago and recognized our obligations toward all sentient life on this planet. I think you would enjoy reading Jaak Panksepp, a biologist and neuroscientist and founder of the recent discipline of Affective Neuroscience, and also Frans de Waals, another biologist who has written a series of books primarily on primates. He argues that our best traits were first realized by our forebears in evolution and in other evolutionary lines..

i have big problems with this word consciousness and the rest of cultural distinction of our own ego, in essence i struggle to verify if humanity has this special character in body form, let alone in a supposed spirit form.

I agree with Wallace Stevens, who writes that "the spirit comes from the body of the world."

I'll post links to two sources, one by Panksepp and the other by de Waals, if you or others are interested in them.

 

[Constance]

@Sequel, here is an early paper by Panksepp during his development of Affective Neuroscience:

The periconscious substrates of consciousness. Affective states and evolutionary origins of the SELF

Here is the title of one of de Waal's books:
Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals

From the book description at amazon:

". . . Natural selection may be harsh, but it has produced highly successful species that survive through cooperation and mutual assistance. De Waal identifies this paradox as the key to an evolutionary account of morality, and demonstrates that human morality could never have developed without the foundation of fellow feeling our species shares with other animals. As his work makes clear, a morality grounded in biology leads to an entirely different conception of what it means to he human--and humane."

Probably a lot of this book is available to read at Google Books, and some parts (not enough) are available in the amazon sample text.

 

[Jimi]

I didn't quite follow the two experiments Dr Surprise suggested. I don't think the god one is for me but what was the other one involving imagining you are in some kind of play with a behind the scenes crew?

I am keen to try this out if anyone could be kind enough to give me an idiot proof bullet point or two on what to do I'd be most appreciative. I've listened a few times to that part of the cast but not got to grips with it.

Thanking you in advance

 

[Sequel]

Constance, i need to respond in some fashion to your posts at some point- which are very voluminous, and suppose i need to understand them fully - which takes a long time, before making a hasty admission. (Time i dont really have - oddly enough, to understand what consciousness is all about?) how bizarre is that?
You see when we were babies, we had to put stuff in our mouths to try to discertain whether we were eating ourselves or something more out there!! As we became adults that "out there", became more "in there", we got wrapped up in our own ego - consciousness became our new prison.

 

[guestron]

This one really opened my eyes. I may check out his book, though I still enjoyed the guy that wrote the book about the owls better as an interview, as Surprise is pretty dry.

 

[kanakaris]

Could you detail what makes you say this, kanakaris?

Surely any one who studied theosofy must be interested in Steiner.

 

[Constance]

Constance, i need to respond in some fashion to your posts at some point- which are very voluminous, and suppose i need to understand them fully - which takes a long time, before making a hasty admission. (Time i dont really have - oddly enough, to understand what consciousness is all about?) how bizarre is that?
You see when we were babies, we had to put stuff in our mouths to try to discertain whether we were eating ourselves or something more out there!! As we became adults that "out there", became more "in there", we got wrapped up in our own ego - consciousness became our new prison.

Sorry not to have responded to this post sooner, @Sequel . I must have missed the notice and only saw it just now. Consciousness is indeed a complex and fascinating subject explored by many disciplines these days. In my view phenomenological philosophy has made the greatest contribution to Consciousness Studies by clarifying the relationship of consciousness (in its temporality and openness) to our experiences in a temporally changing world. Consciousness itself is much broader and deeper, and more open to the world and to other beings-in-the-world, than the psychological construct of the 'ego' can be.

'Self-awareness or self-referentiality' is intrinsic in experience, even in subconscious and prereflective experience, but more fully in experiences that we reflect on. What we call the 'ego' does not exhaust the possibilities of the self, which at deeper and higher levels of consciousness is open to and interconnected with the selves of others and with the things that appear to us phenomenally in our environment -- and also potentially with insights that come to us from other dimensions of existence. We can become imprisoned by our egoic self-definitions and are prey to restricting others to similar fixed and reductive ideas about who and what they are in terms of how we 'see' them from an egoic frame of reference. In that frame of reference we miss the open-ended subjectivity of our own consciousness and that of other conscious beings, and also fail to explore the various sources of meaning available to us in embodied life and potentially in disembodied life. Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.

 

[Tyger]

Surely any one who studied theosofy must be interested in Steiner.

Did Dr Kirby indicate that she had studied Theosophy? (For context: I am unable to listen to the episode, which is why I ask what may - for you - be a question with an obvious answer).

P.S. Also, I don't think it's a given that study of Steiner would follow a study of Theosophy.