May 3, 2015 — Eric Wargo: Talk About Reality

[Burnt State]

Living in western civilisation just above the bottom of the consumer induced coma of our times - we're all a bunch of schleps. I wish I spent more time reflecting on reality instead of commuter unconsciousness listening to paranormal podcasts....and? Wait a second. .... ..

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I've lately been in a weird, fatalistic mood, forobvious reasons. This "mood" has translated into feeble attempts at pointed humor. I've been revisiting Bill Hicvks and George Carlin lately... I'm a meat n potatoes, boots-on-the-ground-sorta guy. If that's "elitist" we could use more of this out-in-the-field where the rubber leaves the road.
Yikes, dude!

I'm on Chris's side. But I'd rather be considered a nut swinger rather than a butt kisser. Thanks.

 

[TrivialSublime]

I've lately been in a weird, fatalistic mood, forobvious reasons. This "mood" has translated into feeble attempts at pointed humor. I've been revisiting Bill Hicvks and George Carlin lately... I'm a meat n potatoes, boots-on-the-ground-sorta guy. If that's "elitist" we could use more of this out-in-the-field where the rubber leaves the road.
Yikes, dude!

Nope your statement was elitist, good to know how how you feel about people who have bought your books, see ya.

 

[Burnt State]

What I really appreciated about this show was how speculative it was, and not wacko speculative, just creatively speculative and steeped in some interesting theories and sound research. As spoken about in After The Paracast, you roamed around a lot freely and held the show together nonetheless, so there was always interesting entry points into the show. If anything it sounded a lot like a Misterioso episode even inside the Paracast format. It reminded me all over again what I like most about radio and about ufology - the creative seeking that some get up to. The best episodes from both shows are free-ranging examinations of ideas where all on the show participate in that creative speculation.

Eric is definitely a creative seeker that has engaged in some heavy reflection, interesting personal experimentation and has managed to pull some pretty imaginative ideas together. I don't buy all of them but I really gravitated to his ideas of the cinematic, as that's how I live. The world is always a live film projection in my brain and on occasion I take time to re-edit and try to trace back threads of ideas and experiences. The feedback loop using Vallee's cab ride (he talks about this on his first TED talk as well) with Mr. Melchizedek was well sewn together, but I didn't buy a word of it. I just don't see synchronicities working that way at all, but like with Mac Tonnies, these thought experiments are the most interesting parts of ufology.

Some moments of contradiction from the anthropologist i'd like some clarity on: during the critique of Jung and people not living their life according to powerful symbols I got a little lost. Don't we in fact live according to symbols? Perhaps this was more dominant in the past when during the pre-literate days and earlier, most people communicated through symbols and images - in fact such things could determine life and death. Since then our society has been well trained to read and live according to symbolic images and even make decisions about our lives according to our interpretative communications. While the modern era is replete with a greater diversity, even chaos of images, I still see people living according to the codes of the times. They define status, power, actions, desire and what should happen next. It seems to me that lurking under our skin are the unconscious actions we don't even think about, so strong is the symbolic social training.

The UFO and paranormal experience is connected directly to our acculturation and the outcomes of such strange experiences must rely on who we are, as a product of our culture. This may help to explain some of the mythic and bizarre qualities of such strange experiences because our own context is limited to our time and place. Focusing more on the experiencer than the stimulus may yield better clues and greater depths of information.

What also made Eric so engaging was not just his willingness to explore but his ability to say, "I don't know." From reading his blog space I can see that there's a lot of depth there and I hope you have him back on for more interesting journeys.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Calling @Jeff Davis - what did you think of the show?

I was sick there for a few days with an allergy blitzkrieg turned secondary respiratory infection. Much better now however, back to work, catching up full speed, and will respond here just as soon as I have had an opportunity to listen to the show. Eric is always a super source of out of the box inspiration for me. I actually recommended him & his blog to the Paracast back in 2012 and am really looking to a full head on dose of his well reasoned speculations.

 

[Eric Wargo]

What I really appreciated about this show was how speculative it was, and not wacko speculative, just creatively speculative and steeped in some interesting theories and sound research. As spoken about in After The Paracast, you roamed around a lot freely and held the show together nonetheless, so there was always interesting entry points into the show. If anything it sounded a lot like a Misterioso episode even inside the Paracast format. It reminded me all over again what I like most about radio and about ufology - the creative seeking that some get up to. The best episodes from both shows are free-ranging examinations of ideas where all on the show participate in that creative speculation.

Eric is definitely a creative seeker that has engaged in some heavy reflection, interesting personal experimentation and has managed to pull some pretty imaginative ideas together. I don't buy all of them but I really gravitated to his ideas of the cinematic, as that's how I live. The world is always a live film projection in my brain and on occasion I take time to re-edit and try to trace back threads of ideas and experiences. The feedback loop using Vallee's cab ride (he talks about this on his first TED talk as well) with Mr. Melchizedek was well sewn together, but I didn't buy a word of it. I just don't see synchronicities working that way at all, but like with Mac Tonnies, these thought experiments are the most interesting parts of ufology.

Some moments of contradiction from the anthropologist i'd like some clarity on: during the critique of Jung and people not living their life according to powerful symbols I got a little lost. Don't we in fact live according to symbols? Perhaps this was more dominant in the past when during the pre-literate days and earlier, most people communicated through symbols and images - in fact such things could determine life and death. Since then our society has been well trained to read and live according to symbolic images and even make decisions about our lives according to our interpretative communications. While the modern era is replete with a greater diversity, even chaos of images, I still see people living according to the codes of the times. They define status, power, actions, desire and what should happen next. It seems to me that lurking under our skin are the unconscious actions we don't even think about, so strong is the symbolic social training.

The UFO and paranormal experience is connected directly to our acculturation and the outcomes of such strange experiences must rely on who we are, as a product of our culture. This may help to explain some of the mythic and bizarre qualities of such strange experiences because our own context is limited to our time and place. Focusing more on the experiencer than the stimulus may yield better clues and greater depths of information.

What also made Eric so engaging was not just his willingness to explore but his ability to say, "I don't know." From reading his blog space I can see that there's a lot of depth there and I hope you have him back on for more interesting journeys.

Thanks Robert,
I didn't mean people don't live by powerful symbols--we're absolutely symbolic creatures down to the bone, I absolutely agree with you--it is just the hypostatized concept of "archetypes" I have trouble with. Maybe I'm reading too much into his concept but Jung seems to want to push that term, and its causal force, to some kind of higher level. I'm sure there are universal symbols, simply reflecting the universality of some aspects of human experience (at least to this point in our evolution), but I don't know that even those are hard-wired. As a thought experiment, if we "transcended in the Singularity" for example and became fully cyborgs, would the same archetypal structures (e.g. involving sex and gender etc.) still guide our thought and behavior? I don't know but I doubt it--I think we are infinitely cognitively flexible. For instance, technology has introduced new fundamental symbols: I'd call the Computer and the Robot extremely powerful "archetypes" of our times in that sense, but they certainly can't be universal inheritances of the human unconscious as Jung described, right? But, like I said, maybe I'm reading too much into his concept.
Re: Melchizedek--I don't necessarily buy what I was saying either , although I think it would actually fit the model Vallee proposed in that TED talk (based on Philippe Guillemant): "our intentions cause effects in the future that become the future causes of present effects." I think Vallee, too, is trying to think outside of archetypes.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Nope your statement was elitist, good to know how how you feel about people who have bought your books, see ya.

WTF, did you grow up on a corn farm or something? Sometimes the truth cuts the deepest. Don't let the barndoor kick yer ass on the way out...

 

[undertowe]

Hey folks, this is my first post! First off, I enjoyed the interview with Eric. It's exciting and stimulating to hear new perspectives on these topics. He's been mentioned on the show before, but I'd like to propose Jeffrey Kripal as a guest. Coming from the field of religious studies (not to be confused with theology), Kripal has a fresh and unique perspective on paranormal phenomena. Definitely not a nuts-and-bolts kind of guy, so he's certain to rock a few boats, but definitely a voice worth including in the dialogue. His books Authors of the Impossible and Mutants and Mystics are worth a read.

Anyways, the topic of synchronicity was raised in this episode. Here's the problem I have, and which I'm hoping someone can address. How do we know that alleged synchronistic events are anything but chance occurrence? In all the discussion of synchronicity that I've encountered, I have yet to hear anyone offer a persuasive argument against that possibility. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate how co-occurrences of certain events can have a profound emotional impact on the parties involved, but that alone says nothing about the actual probability of the events occurring simultaneously, only something about the psychology of us humans. In other words, our emotional response proves nothing about the actual probability of the events under consideration.

When we experience a series of meaningful coincidences, our instinctive reaction is to think, "Wow, what is the probability of these events happening together?" We then conclude that the probability is very low, as in the Melchizedek example mentioned in this episode, and that leads us to suspect something non-random is at work behind the scenes. But, we're asking the wrong question. Yes, the probability of those specific events occurring together might be very low. But, the probability of some meaningful events occurring together is probably actually quite high across a person's lifetime. There are many, many ways that events can come together and seem meaningful. So, if we're wondering about the likelihood of something that we just experienced, we should be asking ourselves how likely it was that something meaningful like that could happen, but not necessarily in that particular way. The answer, I believe, is: quite likely.

I believe even Jung admitted that we can't be sure if the events underlying a supposed synchronicity are actually unlikely. If I recall, he sort of dithered on that issue, and ended up merely asserting that they seem unlikely. Since we can't really know how likely the events actually are, and furthermore we expect synchronistic experiences to happen occasionally from sheer chance alone, why don't we just drop the issue and assume there's nothing peculiar going on? It's just our crappy sense of probability that makes it seem otherwise.

Thoughts?

 

[TrivialSublime]

WTF, did you grow up on a corn farm or something? Sometimes the truth cuts the deepest. Don't let the barndoor kick yer ass on the way out...

Well since you've made this personal lets go there, never really liked your affected outdoorsy adventure look with the hat and the facial hair, a bit too stereotypical. And then the profession of chasing things that go bump in the night, have you every contributed to society (never mind that’s a rhetorical question).

And lastly I remember an interview a few years ago where you specifically said Philip J. Imbrogno was an inspiration that makes you a real genius and calls into question your judgment so your opinion can be questioned. You leave the barn first and I'll slam the door against your arse, how’s that for tough keyboard talk, flame on.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Well since you've made this personal lets go there, never really liked your affected outdoorsy adventure look with the hat and the facial hair, a bit too stereotypical. And then the profession of chasing things that go bump in the night, have you every contributed to society [?]

At least I stand up and speak my mind—what you see is what you get. I don't hide behind an anonymous tag like you. Isn't it easy and convenient to toss around barbs from the safety of an affected identity? Lets you feel all warm, fuzzy and safe, doesn't it? I don't give a fuck what you think about me, my look or anything else! Is that direct enough for you? If not I can drill down on you with a larger bit...

 

[Burnt State]

Hey folks, this is my first post! First off, I enjoyed the interview with Eric. It's exciting and stimulating to hear new perspectives on these topics. He's been mentioned on the show before, but I'd like to propose Jeffrey Kripal as a guest. Coming from the field of religious studies (not to be confused with theology), Kripal has a fresh and unique perspective on paranormal phenomena. Definitely not a nuts-and-bolts kind of guy, so he's certain to rock a few boats, but definitely a voice worth including in the dialogue. His books Authors of the Impossible and Mutants and Mystics are worth a read.

Anyways, the topic of synchronicity was raised in this episode. Here's the problem I have, and which I'm hoping someone can address. How do we know that alleged synchronistic events are anything but chance occurrence? In all the discussion of synchronicity that I've encountered, I have yet to hear anyone offer a persuasive argument against that possibility. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate how co-occurrences of certain events can have a profound emotional impact on the parties involved, but that alone says nothing about the actual probability of the events occurring simultaneously, only something about the psychology of us humans. In other words, our emotional response proves nothing about the actual probability of the events under consideration.

When we experience a series of meaningful coincidences, our instinctive reaction is to think, "Wow, what is the probability of these events happening together?" We then conclude that the probability is very low, as in the Melchizedek example mentioned in this episode, and that leads us to suspect something non-random is at work behind the scenes. But, we're asking the wrong question. Yes, the probability of those specific events occurring together might be very low. But, the probability of some meaningful events occurring together is probably actually quite high across a person's lifetime. There are many, many ways that events can come together and seem meaningful. So, if we're wondering about the likelihood of something that we just experienced, we should be asking ourselves how likely it was that something meaningful like that could happen, but not necessarily in that particular way. The answer, I believe, is: quite likely.

I believe even Jung admitted that we can't be sure if the events underlying a supposed synchronicity are actually unlikely. If I recall, he sort of dithered on that issue, and ended up merely asserting that they seem unlikely. Since we can't really know how likely the events actually are, and furthermore we expect synchronistic experiences to happen occasionally from sheer chance alone, why don't we just drop the issue and assume there's nothing peculiar going on? It's just our crappy sense of probability that makes it seem otherwise.

Thoughts?

Speaking as an affected identity I will dare to point back at Jung's definition, as I've been reminded before here on the forum (in fact a search on 'synchronicity' will reveal some pretty cool discussion on your question), that this 'meaningful coincidence' is in fact unique to the experiencer. These are powerful events, as anyone who has experienced such events knows. They have the power to shake any decent suspicious, skeptical person into accepting the possibility of not necessarily powers from the beyond but certainly the sense that something else in is operation just outside our grasp, a kind of pattern that we sometimes recognize.

When you look at some of the incredible stories like the guy visiting a foreign European city and orders a dessert dish in this posh restaurant. He is informed that another gentleman, by such and such a name, has already ordered the last piece of the pie so to speak. This happens not once but three bleepin' times, where the same guy is ordering that dessert in the same restaurant while vacationing, and each time this same nemesis has already scooped it. There are many such stories.

It could be argued that the leisure class may have its own patterns and habits & that in the possibilities of their recurrent actions such synchronicities are perhaps quite likely and not so special. Still, scenes from Last Year at Marienbad flash before my eyes. But the great criticism of synchronicity is that coincidence happens all the time, just much less frequently than a lack of coincidence, and given the many possible potential permutations of reality we should not be surprised in the least when such things happen. We're all free to take the existentialist perspectives and make as much or little meaning out of life as we choose. Some like a Camus zombie state of The Stranger mind - others believe in scientology.

 

[Eric Wargo]

Hey folks, this is my first post! First off, I enjoyed the interview with Eric. It's exciting and stimulating to hear new perspectives on these topics. He's been mentioned on the show before, but I'd like to propose Jeffrey Kripal as a guest. Coming from the field of religious studies (not to be confused with theology), Kripal has a fresh and unique perspective on paranormal phenomena. Definitely not a nuts-and-bolts kind of guy, so he's certain to rock a few boats, but definitely a voice worth including in the dialogue. His books Authors of the Impossible and Mutants and Mystics are worth a read.

Anyways, the topic of synchronicity was raised in this episode. Here's the problem I have, and which I'm hoping someone can address. How do we know that alleged synchronistic events are anything but chance occurrence? In all the discussion of synchronicity that I've encountered, I have yet to hear anyone offer a persuasive argument against that possibility. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate how co-occurrences of certain events can have a profound emotional impact on the parties involved, but that alone says nothing about the actual probability of the events occurring simultaneously, only something about the psychology of us humans. In other words, our emotional response proves nothing about the actual probability of the events under consideration.

When we experience a series of meaningful coincidences, our instinctive reaction is to think, "Wow, what is the probability of these events happening together?" We then conclude that the probability is very low, as in the Melchizedek example mentioned in this episode, and that leads us to suspect something non-random is at work behind the scenes. But, we're asking the wrong question. Yes, the probability of those specific events occurring together might be very low. But, the probability of some meaningful events occurring together is probably actually quite high across a person's lifetime. There are many, many ways that events can come together and seem meaningful. So, if we're wondering about the likelihood of something that we just experienced, we should be asking ourselves how likely it was that something meaningful like that could happen, but not necessarily in that particular way. The answer, I believe, is: quite likely.

I believe even Jung admitted that we can't be sure if the events underlying a supposed synchronicity are actually unlikely. If I recall, he sort of dithered on that issue, and ended up merely asserting that they seem unlikely. Since we can't really know how likely the events actually are, and furthermore we expect synchronistic experiences to happen occasionally from sheer chance alone, why don't we just drop the issue and assume there's nothing peculiar going on? It's just our crappy sense of probability that makes it seem otherwise.

Thoughts?

Hi Undertowe,
I couldn't agree more about Kripal--everyone here should read those two books, immediately, if you haven't already. He's doing the most important and interesting work related to the paranormal right now, in my opinion, and he's also just a really good, thoughtful guy, from a few interactions I've had. He's using his academic tenure in the best possible way--making Fortean topics legitimate scholarship.
As for synchronicity, you are stating the standard skeptical/rationalist view, and there's no way to counter it. The point of view that sees such events as personally meaningful is, when it comes down to it, subjective and therefore unquantifiable. There's no way to debate the issue, because there's no common ground between the objective and subjective viewpoints; thus it comes down to a matter of choice. I'm not sure whether Jung ever addressed this, but I think all paranormal occurrences including synchronicities, being 'liminal,' demand a kind of choice: you have to choose your own attitude to them, even though there's ultimately no solid or firm basis for either position. There's something deeply existential about them in that way.
I agree with Burnt State that, even if a certain number of coincidences can be expected to occur in a person's life, really remarkable synchronicities are simply unfathomable, even if you can't exactly quantify the odds. For instance Vallee's Melchizedek: there was only a single Melchizedek in the LA phone directory, and that one person (out of how many million?) picked him up in a cab just as he had finished researching the Melchizedek UFO cult. I don't know how to quantify it, but the odds are clearly astronomical, and more importantly the event pertained to the single most important obsession of Vallee at that point in his life. The synchronicity was so significant to Vallee that he made a stained glass window of the biblical figure by that name (as described in Kripal's chapter on Vallee in Authors of the Impossible). All real synchronicities have that personally significant quality. (But as I argue in my recent series of Nightshirt posts, it could have a surprisingly rational explanation via misrecognized precognition--my own opinion.)
Eric

 

[undertowe]

Burnt State and Eric, thanks for the responses!

You both raise a good point, that interpreting coincidences as something more than dumb luck requires a kind of existential "leap of faith". Speaking from my own experience, I've never been able to make that leap in good conscience. Like most people, I've experienced my fair share of unusual coincidences. They certainly leave an impression, and spark my curiosity and wonder, but ultimately I'm not able to convince myself than they point to anything anomalous. As much as I'd welcome evidence that some "connecting principle" is operating in our reality, in the words of Laplace, "I had no need of that hypothesis." If someone can demonstrate that these constellations of events are happening at a frequency significantly greater than expected by chance, then we'd have something to talk about. That's probably unlikely, however, since I can't even imagine how to rigorously test such a claim. As it stands, all we have is the nagging, often very powerful, but subjective impression that something odd is transpiring behind the scenes, but no good evidence to support that hypothesis apart from the occasional anecdote. At this point the rational part of me says, "There's nothing to explain. There is no effect for which to seek a cause. There is no statistically significant pattern, just the mistaken perception of such. It's just noise being mistaken for signal." I can't get past that point. Perhaps having a full-blown synchronicity experience on the level of Vallee would change my tune. Even then, it would just be one more anecdote, interesting but rather useless for demonstrating a real effect. Just to be clear, I don't mean to disparage anyone for taking synchronicity seriously or considering the implications and even theorizing about possible mechanisms.

I have more thoughts about "liminal" phenomena, what can be rationally spoken about them, the limits of our knowledge, etc. but I'll save those for another time.

 

[Burnt State]

I have more thoughts about "liminal" phenomena, what can be rationally spoken about them, the limits of our knowledge, etc. but I'll save those for another time.

There's nothing wrong with getting all liminal right here and now. There's lots of interesting knowledge still to be derived by asking more and more questions about fear as a carrier wave, about our biochemistry and about our inner psycho-social codex of images and training encrypted in the shape of memories. These interact fluidly in our wetsuit of flesh and senses in tandem with that brain encryption & are followed by instant bio-chemical responses producing further emotions. In the liminal space lies the mystical and mythical. Narratives follow.

Have your say. Nothing like a good telling or imaginng.

 

[boomerang]

A quick statement: I am just now two thirds of the way through the Wargo interview, and I think it is going to stack up as one of the most superbly thought provoking shows in the Paracast inventory. Wargo is a fresh and critical thinker with theories that are beautifully esoteric and yet stand up well to critical thinking. And Wargo has certainly done his "homework". Another way of saying: Waytogo !

 

[Lumaza]

I have listened to this fantastic Podcast by Eric, Gene and Chris and had to make a post here to reiterate the importance of logging your Dreams, via a paper Journal or other means.
I have been logging my Dreams for years now. At first I was an observer in them. Then I began awaking/becoming Lucid in them and that's when my perception of what Dreams really were stated to alter.
When I first became Lucid in them, I started to alter them in many ways. I would create Portals/doorways, etc. to new frontiers. I found that this was a area where thought = action, so it was very easy to do.
I then found myself in a series of tests and quests and found that our Dreams are actually an entirely different type of school from here in this physical realm. I also found that there is "structure" there. Meaning there are rules, just like there are here. Who makes these rules? It could be myself on some higher self level. But I always felt guided.
What really shook up my perception of what is real and what isn't is when I just went with the Dream scenario at hand. This is when I found that I was actually living other realities, as other paths of a major decisions from my past. Other times, on occasion when I became Lucid in the Dream, I would have the "deja vu" feeling that I had been there before or that I had met the people I was with. Even though I had never met those people or been to that area in this current reality at all. Sometimes it was actually working on a project and finding that this was something I had started in another Dream that I previously had before. These scenarios I labeled "continuation Dreams".
Through my Lucidity in Dreaming I also learned the art of "Re-Scripting" my Dreams. This was another lesson I was taught earlier in my experiences. This was taught spontaneously though. But once I mastered it consciously aware, I found it to be quite the tool.
I also found that the only difference between Astral Projection and Lucid Dreams was that with AP, you are fully conscious all the way. Whether it's by Trance, Deep Meditation, etc., you are consciously experiencing all the way through it. With LDs, you are becoming Lucid in the Dream and thus have to re-orient yourself quickly. But, all the hard work getting to that point is already down.
I have had some Dreams whereas in one night of Dreaming I lived an entire lifetime. I awoke different times during these "lifetime" scenarios, then found myself back in the same area again, but I had aged. These were quite fascinating and once again the reason I wished to reiterate the importance of logging your Dreams.
Thank You for listening!

 

[Jeff Davis]

Calling @Jeff Davis - what did you think of the show?

Burnt State,
In a word, inspired. I listened to the show several times in increments as I was able to over the course of the weekend. I found myself repeatedly engaged and intrigued throughout the show as I either affirmed or denied various perspectives that Eric proposed based on some of my own speculative suspicions. Ultimately, it was just really great, I mean a super GREAT vibe, to listen to Eric, Gene, and Chris openly and eagerly discuss the anything but certain nature of reality. IMO, that's what the paranormal ultimately boils down to, or better yet, perhaps boils up from. It's not about identifying or naming each individual phenomenon in the sense that we ask ourselves: What is Bigfoot?, What are UFOs?, What are Ghosts?, etc. It's also seemingly not about correlating observationally determined attributes and typification like species, behavior, shapes, nights of the week, etc. It's like Eric was stating in the interview about only having so much confidence in the observer's experiential stories. It seems that the greatest chance or opportunity that we have of coming to best understand the paranormal is cartographic in nature. Mapping that big phenomenal intersection, the big paranormal crossroads, that are always, in each and every case, located smack dab in the middle of this thing we call reality. This seems like a study that would yield real plausibility with respect for an attribute of human existence that has been around since time began.

Without a new and sincerely expanded awareness of what constitutes this wellspring of consciousness we call reality, I believe that much of the paranormal is too often confused with reality's basic signage. By means of the rational conformist, the reductionist, the faint of heart skeptic, we find the realm of the paranormal experience delegated the inanimate quality that one would expect to be assigned to Rod Sterling's "Signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!".

For me the entire discussion pointed to several key speculative concepts, but none so telling as what the possible non-local, and superposition relevant nature of information and time, is coming to mean to our expanding awareness of what underlies the many anomalies of phenomenological experience. It helps to affirm for me that time may be a non-local medium through, or by which, information may propagate thoroughly independent of the human physical condition's local awareness and orientation to it, albeit inexorably entangled with it in an environmental sense, and thereby via natural forces that we are yet familiar with, following pathways leading to our perceptions for which we can only presently attribute the aforementioned twilight zone or paranormal rendered meaning, and thus provide a foyer for this experiential orientation to unfold.
Further, this would seem to support the notion that the sentient consciousness that we assume is brain generated, being a self contained fixed perceptual point of phenomenal uptake, is actually some type of a relativistically, intrinsic shared experience with a far larger form of non-localized awareness. Possibly one consisting solely of information, that has the ability, albeit possibly not willful in nature, to possess, or be entangled with us, just as we are with it.

Great show guys!

 

[Burnt State]

I want to digest more of your language and strong thoughts here, Jeff, but on the face of it, and just quickly, it seems to me that you are almost arguing for a kind of more developed version of the "ancestor simulation" proposal, all our reality contained in the holographic hard drive of god's mind and where we also derive some kind of simulated sentience ourselves - our own universe just a nodal peninsula of information, which, due to our limited upgrades, we are only able to perceive a small slice of the hologram. And if so, I must say that the creator of the hologram we live in rocks as the diversity and level of detail we are experiencing is simply profound. I find it fascinating, that as our own technology continues to evolve and our ability to understand our aspects of reality and greater levels of detail and resolution we are able to create more unique metaphors for how to understand our macro reality and our intersections with UFO's. I have a former student who is currently working on self-organzing principles of molecular structures, studying what happens at the nano level. I wonder, as we start to understand these more basic building blocks, and begin to reveal what builds those will we gain a finer appreciation for the ubiquitous nature of life and perhaps sentience as well. Perhaps, and Wargo will appreciate this, as we start to stare down deeper and deeper into the code, like Decker in Blade Runner with his snake scale, one day we will be peering down into the super-nano microscope and see the serial numbers of creation.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I want to digest more of your language and strong thoughts here, Jeff, but on the face of it, and just quickly, it seems to me that you are almost arguing for a kind of more developed version of the "ancestor simulation" proposal, all our reality contained in the holographic hard drive of god's mind and where we also derive some kind of simulated sentience ourselves - our own universe just a nodal peninsula of information, which, due to our limited upgrades, we are only able to perceive a small slice of the hologram. And if so, I must say that the creator of the hologram we live in rocks as the diversity and level of detail we are experiencing is simply profound. I find it fascinating, that as our own technology continues to evolve and our ability to understand our aspects of reality and greater levels of detail and resolution we are able to create more unique metaphors for how to understand our macro reality and our intersections with UFO's. I have a former student who is currently working on self-organzing principles of molecular structures, studying what happens at the nano level. I wonder, as we start to understand these more basic building blocks, and begin to reveal what builds those will we gain a finer appreciation for the ubiquitous nature of life and perhaps sentience as well. Perhaps, and Wargo will appreciate this, as we start to stare down deeper and deeper into the code, like Decker in Blade Runner with his snake scale, one day we will be peering down into the super-nano microscope and see the serial numbers of creation.

Boy, that's a great deal to bite off and chew on. A scary meal for certain. However thankfully, with our "knowing" hands tied as they presently are behind our backs, we are longingly stuck in a "ogling the speculative menu" mode at this point, so it's all good!

I'm thinking that it breaks down somewhat like what you are referring to in the "hard drive of God's mind" part, but that ultimately, physicality in the isolated local (temporal), decay bound (physical) dimension in which we all live out our lives, is absolutely real. I do not believe physicality is a projection as much as I believe "reality" is. Sentience may be a form of feedback against the backdrop of our relationship to and with environmental consciousness. The signified finality within such a relationship is merely the fact that we decay and die. Possibly we are like cells and serve a very specific integral role in the natural ordered make-up of what I can only begin to refer to as an extremely complex natural systemic model. I state "model" because I have no idea what type of system it is, but it would seem logical when we look around in nature at how the natural world is in fact integral and ordered, even if it is autonomous, that such a system also contain an intrinsic interdependent make up.

It's just a suspicion, but I'm thinking all time is happening at once. This might be termed Omnitemporality, or the non-local nature of time might be said to be omni temporal, but I certainly don't believe that is the case with reality. I do not believe that it's situational outcome is a sea of indeterminate possibilities that is unfolding in random as was contended on the show. It's outcome would seem to be absolute and unvarying because all superposition is in a state of that which is both constant and existent. Meaning that IMO, not only are specific particles that are observed as being specific, non-specific, they are finitely non-specific so that they are in reality all existent particles simultaneously. Because our temporal awareness is entrained locally, we can only observe one instance of each particle identity as it's status differentiates. IMO, this is the illusion of time. So therefore, everything that is, is all that it can be at once, right now. Not in an endless chain of uncertain outcomes however. If that was the case it would seem we could not identify the differing particle status to begin with as there would simply be too many unknown particles in a constant state of non-processable chaos. The universe is built and assembled on the order that information is entrained according to local consciousness in all cases. That's why we can't tell such a projection of reality is taking place. Things like time and information are non-local projections into the realm of non-local environmental consciousness whereas within as much we are entrained to cognitively interpret time and information from strictly a local perspective into a localized experience.

 

[Burnt State]

Ok, I followed all of that and am good with this vision of god's mind and our own finite temporal experience with potential purpose that exists alongside an infinite potential of possibilities but I need you to help me understand the mechanism at work here:

The universe is built and assembled on the order that information is entrained according to local consciousness in all cases. That's why we can't tell such a projection of reality is taking place. Things like time and information are non-local projections into the realm of non-local environmental consciousness whereas within as much we are entrained to cognitively interpret time and information from strictly a local perspective into a localized experience.

Can you explain the how's and why's of this universe assembling itself around us and is this 'us' a soup of combined localized experience of many individuals?

And if so are emotions just products of a body politic, innate reactions to shifts inside the collective consciousness of living physical tissues combined together by the very weave and fabric of our functiality in a conscious universe? Is this all getting too new agey? I suddenly feel like I need to get my chakras vibrating at the right rpm's through use of my crystals to open my interior digital third eye and get a better fiber optic connection to god.

Maybe @Eric Wargo will come back online and give you a better response to the territory you are charting.