Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[Tyger]

I didn't log in or register, just went straight to the tests - I didn't see any questions about where I found out about the site either, so I think all of that is optional. There is information on the site about methodology and I think you can request more info on it.

Thank you for that. I balked at 'registering'. When I saw your comment I dove in. I did get the question about how I found the site - a drop-down menu that had many, many choices: I chose 'suggested in a chat site discussion'. I interpret the question as harmless - they're just trying to track how people 'find' them. Seems fair.

I did notice that as I answered certain questions at the end, the question menu 'ahead' actually shifted - meaning changed. So the system altered it's questions as I answered. I didn't notice how the questions altered but if I were to do another test I'd do a quick scan just for the hey of it.

I am happy to say that I am pleased with the result. I chose the African American - European American IAT - with the result being 'little to no preference' - which is 17% of the test results. I am pleased but I am also surprised - I just assumed that I would score at some level of bias (towards my own color - seemed reasonable). In my work I get charged with bias occasionally by certain racial groupings - though quite honestly I have a warm fuzzy for most people. I definitely understand why Blacks can be 'touchy' - and I am sooooo on the side of young Black males and the unfair bias against them. I live and work in a very mixed environment.

The test itself requires very quick thinking. They did ask me what I thought at one point about how I did - and I indicated that I am a very quick study and I pretty much 'got' the 'trick' of the test at once. I understood - recognized - the process they were using and could compensate as I did the test. It helps if one has been in university as a student recently and had to take complex tests under a time limit. Keeps the intellectual muscles limber if nothing else.

 

[boomerang]

Yes. It can be hard to describe - it's comforting though to hear you acknowledge that. But loneliness is a state too, it's a quality of life that affects time and mood and it tempers you in some ways. You pass through anxiety and fear - long, dark dead quiet nights - and into a kind of acceptance. There is a sort of death in loneliness. I'm just now ending an extended period of aloneness but it came at a good time in my life and was healing - I have actually felt that could I live another life, I would have a hermetic existence. I keep good company with myself. (and there are always the dogs!) ;-)

As far as like-minded people I grew up disguising what I thought - I was in an academic family within a small town environment, so you learned a double-life. That kind of loneliness, I now realize, I have always taken for granted.

A very eloquent summation of this aspect of the proverbial human condition. Yes, you are fortunate indeed in these crowded times to live close to nature. And being alone and loneliness are two utterly separate states of mind. One of the best Thanksgivings I ever had was backpacking by myself in the Colorado Rockies, taking a short hike from my tent to ponder an already frozen pond. The stillness was palpable. There can be a kind of fullness in emptiness, paradoxically. Or--empty can be just plain empty. At any rate, glad to hear you are at peace with your surrounds.

 

[Randall]

Where we're at with the issue of consciousness leaves us with two opposing models for our view of the unexplained:

1. Physically generated consciousness
2. Unexplained mystical consciousness

Brain generated consciousness offers a physical model for exploring claims of the unexplained, while unexplained mystical consciousness seems to leave us with nothing substantial to build a coherent theory on. For example physically generated consciousness proposes that consciousness resides within a complex network of fields produced by the brain that might be likened to magnetic or EM fields that could in theory interact with other fields produced by other brains in a way that facilitates the transfer of information. So phenomena like a sixth sense, the sense of being stared at, or other telepathic communication might be explained by a physical process that we can study and learn more about.

On the other hand, the unexplained mystical consciousness theory leaves us with faith, mysticism, mythology, religion, and personal belief based on our preferences for what we want the universe to be like. Or is there some rational philosophical approach that leaves the faith based requirements of theology out of the picture that I've missed? One avenue that we might explore is that the nature of existence seems to extend beyond what we can determine based on detection, measurement and observation alone. Despite the objections of some scientists, the source of the fundamental forces of nature still isn't known. Some cling to the idea that it is the particle itself that is responsible for the force. However that isn't a logical answer for explaining what is that imparts the force onto the particle in the first place.

So the question now, is whether or not the issues we run into with the limitations of current scientific understanding can be theorized to bridge the gap into what we presently believe is the mystical? If so how? One promising avenue that we've touched on before in the Paracast is the idea that we live in a generated construct, and therefore everything in our universe, including consciousness, ultimately resides on a vastly powerful processing system, and therefore, in theory our consciousness could perhaps be isolated and backed up to a memory buffer, thereby facilitating concepts like disembodied consciousness and other paranormal ideas. However I'm somewhat skeptical that even in such a scenario, the resulting consciousness would be sufficient to count as the original "you" so to speak.

 

[boomerang]

So the question now, is whether or not the issues we run into with the limitations of current scientific understanding can be theorized to bridge the gap into what we presently believe is the mystical? If so how?

This lies closely along the lines of questions we are capable of asking re consciousness. It seems an extrapolation of the discussion regarding substrate dependent vs substrate independent minds. There might ultimately be hypotheses here that are testable.

One promising avenue that we've touched on before in the Paracast is the idea that we live in a generated construct, and therefore everything in our universe, including consciousness, ultimately resides on a vastly powerful processing system, and therefore, in theory our consciousness could perhaps be isolated and backed up to a memory buffer, thereby facilitating concepts like disembodied consciousness and other paranormal ideas. However I'm somewhat skeptical that even in such a scenario, the resulting consciousness would be sufficient to count as the original "you" so to speak.

This is my personal favorite. I believe certain theoretical physicists have invested some limited effort in thought experiments about how we might validate the virtual universe model. Another potentially testable hypothesis, I think.

 

[Tyger]

This is my personal favorite. I believe certain theoretical physicists have invested some limited effort in thought experiments about how we might validate the virtual universe model. Another potentially testable hypothesis, I think.

Well, that is what it seems many people are doing these days - finding a book - or a film - to 'live in'. Scientific exploration is often stimulated as much by hopes and wishes - a vision of what might be possible - as much as by a 'scientific problem'. More is pursued through the imagination than we know.

LINK:

For some it's 'The Matrix' - for others it's 'Harry Potter'.

Or, this........

LINK:

And this.......beginning with a scene with the silicon-based life form that evolved from the robots (not an alien).......

LINK:

In all of these the underlying truth weaves - life and love and tears (all that 'science' - meaning some scientists - is still ignorant of claiming to understand since such is beyond physical-universe measurements) ..... but pointers to what some recognize as obvious.

In the end, it matters not what our discursive minds fabricate - what stories we assemble (though they are helpful in pointing the way) it is what 'is' that matters. That there is knowledge obtainable beyond sense-bound thinking - thinking bound by the physical universe - and beyond the information and facts garnered by exploring merely that physical universe - takes an acute and subtle perception, that many already have. "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." It is as simple - and profound - as that.

 

[Randall]

Well, that is what it seems many people are doing these days - finding a book - or a film - to 'live in'. Scientific exploration is often stimulated as much by hopes and wishes - a vision of what might be possible - as much as by a 'scientific problem'. More is pursued through the imagination than we know.

Some powerful moments there. The key is in keeping fact and fiction separate, especially when the details aren't always mutually exclusive. There's a saying that science fiction breeds science fact, and there are plenty of examples out there. In the case of the generated construct I alluded to earlier, it's not the same idea as The Matrix movies, where we are humans connected to a perceptual simulation by a physical interface implanted into our brains. The theory is that spacetime itself is part of the construct, and although the idea is related to The Matrix, there are very important differences, and there is circumstantial scientific evidence.

In all of these the underlying truth weaves - life and love and tears (all that 'science' - meaning some scientists - is still ignorant of claiming to understand since such is beyond physical-universe measurements) ..... but pointers to what some recognize as obvious. In the end, it matters not what our discursive minds fabricate - what stories we assemble (though they are helpful in pointing the way) it is what 'is' that matters. That there is knowledge obtainable beyond sense-bound thinking - thinking bound by the physical universe - and beyond the information and facts garnered by exploring merely that physical universe - takes an acute and subtle perception, that many already have. "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." It is as simple - and profound - as that.

Science is a powerful tool, but it only represents a narrow slice of what constitutes our life experience and worldview. The thing about it is how well it facilitates so much more beyond science itself. For example, if a scientist was asked to explore the dancing you allude to, they would no doubt also discover the music, perhaps even the interpretation. The question is whether or not they would become one with the dance and truly understand it from the perspective of a dancer. I suspect that they would, and perhaps even find a way to improve upon it. Last but not least, there is a merging of science and dance, especially in modern dance, and some scientists are even dancers!

Science & Dance

 

[Tyger]

Science is a powerful tool, but it only represents a narrow slice of what constitutes our life experience and worldview. The thing about it is how well it facilitates so much more beyond science itself. For example, if a scientist was asked to explore the dancing you allude to, they would no doubt also discover the music, perhaps even the interpretation. The question is whether or not they would become one with the dance and truly understand it from the perspective of a dancer. I suspect that they would, and perhaps even find a way to improve upon it. Last but not least, there is a merging of science and dance, especially in modern dance, and some scientists are even dancers!

In this you continually fail to understand what I am suggesting. Physical based science - a science positioned solely within the physical universe, using physical-sense-bound thinking and physical extensions/instruments of the five physical senses, will get you no where but the physical universe - in all it's glory, in all it's many refinements and many layers - but absolutely no 'where' else.

The instrument of perception and of 'measurement' of anything beyond the physical universe is the human being itself - is what I am saying. This is the 'final frontier'. Anyone skating that edge knows full well that the ancient statements about a 'God', about 'gods', about 'spirit' and 'soul' - are of great significance.

At a juncture not too long back the cutting edge of human progress met with a fork in the road (in a sense), and took the path that has led us into the furthest reaches of the physical universe. That in itself would not be a problem - but in doing so, we (or some at certain times) have became blinded to the 'spiritual' aspects of existence. There are reasons for this - to do with the development of the mind.

However, there is a further development, beyond the mind. The development of the mind leads to what the mystics named 'the dark night of the soul'. Modern thought dubbed it 'existential despair'. The development of the mind leads to an ever greater and deeper sense of loneliness - it is the very nature of this development which we are all obliged to undergo at this time. The development of the intellect places us at ever greater distance from our 'source' - and we feel abandoned. As the mystical texts state: our teacher can be holding our hand but once in that 'dark night' nothing can aid us but our own strength, determination and persistence. [We are aided - there are experiences that are granted to us. It is truly darkest before the dawn - but pressed through, endured, a glimmer does shine through - light, love - whatever - it comes, and the further 'shore' is perceived with 'new eyes'.]

(Certain stages of life have this quality - surrounded by family - in the midst of all merriment - one feels cut-off and alone: ages 30 to 33 and to 35 significant; age 42 - 'death year' - and all through the 40's - and so it goes - as the intellect matures and grows more 'full', the more we must act out of our own will; nothing happens unless we will it so and act - very unlike our youth when everything comes to meet us in overabundance).

In any case, the problems associated with the development of the intellect do have an end - if not aborted [and it is aborted a great deal in modern life through lack of understanding the complex and difficult hallmark of initiation.] If not aborted, there is 'the other side' of that passage, that 'dark night'. The mind is a tool - and must be refined - before it can be used as an organ of perception. (Same for the emotional body - must be refined before it can be an organ of perception). As long as we are not master of our minds, we are still mastered by our thoughts.

That was a lengthy exposition. I hope there are some who are interested. It's a complicated passage - the mind/intellect - but it is essential to press through to the 'other side' - where new capacities are 'born' and perceptions expand. But don't take my word for it - do the inner work. See for yourself. In freedom - you choose the time and day you begin. It is in your hands - in total freedom.

 

[Tyger]

Some powerful moments there. The key is in keeping fact and fiction separate, especially when the details aren't always mutually exclusive. There's a saying that science fiction breeds science fact, and there are plenty of examples out there. In the case of the generated construct I alluded to earlier, it's not the same idea as The Matrix movies, where we are humans connected to a perceptual simulation by a physical interface implanted into our brains. The theory is that spacetime itself is part of the construct, and although the idea is related to The Matrix, there are very important differences, and there is circumstantial scientific evidence.

As Hugo Gernsback told his fledgling writers, it was a case of saying, "If this goes on....." and then speculating what it would look like if, indeed, 'this' - whatever the idea was - went on...and on.... Inevitably, especially those who had a grasp of the hard science - and some the psychological trends - there were some pretty impressive successes.

What's fascinating is to see the growth of Science Fiction and speculative fiction in general over the decades since the 1940's and 1950's. It was a genre that was very much in it's own ghetto and anyone who indulged was a serious 'geek'. But with the emergence of the genre into the mainstream, there has been this other phenomenon - of 'living' the story 'as if'. Maybe it all happened with Star Trek and the role-playing that occurred from it, as well as the Rocky Horror Picture Show phenomenon. But fanciful stuff is being treated as though it were science - and the matrix ideas strike me that way - however....

In art there is a truism - that we are always painting/drawing ourselves. Small children from around the world draw very similar houses and images of the human being regardless of cultural contexts - and much can be deduced about a child's state of development from their pictures. We can look at a drawing and establish the age of a child, in fact. Anyway, I have heard something similar regarding writers - and to extend that to humanity doing the same thing with it's stories - we are always in some form or fashion talking about ourselves - so the artificial intelligence film by Spielberg is less about any actual reality concerning what the 'issues' will be with artificial intelligence than it is an allegory about the human condition vis-a-via cold, hard, clear (passionless) intellect (not to mention issues with mothers!).

Anyway, having said the above, I harbor this hunch that all stories - all ideas - reflect some measure of truth or reality - (shades of that pesky Plato - ha!) - and that truth might be stranger than any of our fictions. Even the 'occult narrative' I am familiar with regarding the universe emerging from pralayas - both large and small - and the story in the sanskrit of the 'rounds' and 'globes' of creation, get repeated and show up in all manner of other story material, far removed from the initial source - even in science. I am going somewhere with this.

I am currently engaged in the details of guiding the dying over the threshold - it's a very special process and experience. (Like the experience of childbirth but in reverse - equally powerful but in different ways).

I was doing some background reading about near-death experiences. The commonality is usually light and in one instance this was the experiencer's report. I report it here because he uses the word 'matrix' to describes what he sees: "Then the Light revealed itself to me and lifted me up to a level I had not been to before. It was not a verbal explanation; it was more like telepathic communication, very vivid. I could feel it. I could feel the light. The light responded and manifested itself at a different level. And the message was: 'Yes, for most people, depending on their background, I am Jesus, Buddha, Krishna.....' "[The being was silent after these words. M__ then asked: 'But who are you really?' M__ describes what happened next]: "Then the light changed into what I can only call a pattern, a mandala of souls of people and I saw that what we call the 'higher self' in each of us is actually a sort of matrix. It is also a channel connecting us to the source, without any intermediaries. It was completely clear to me that all these higher selves were collected in one being, all people together form one being. we are actually the same being or different aspects of the same being."

And the mention of 'the source' brings me to a quote from Nikola Tesla: "My brain is only a receiver. In the universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength, inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists."

 

[Randall]

... I am currently engaged in the details of guiding the dying over the threshold - it's a very special process and experience. (Like the experience of childbirth but in reverse - equally powerful but in different ways) ...

That was a really good post, but I'm a bit concerned about the segment above. I think I would be terrible at "guiding the dying over the threshold" unless it's a gurney over the threshold of the emergency department. I'm too uncertain about afterlives and all the mythology that goes along with it to think I actually know what's really going to happen. The physical part I'm quite certain about however, and most people find that far less comforting. So I'd either be in a position of telling lies or making people uncomfortable, and I'm not a good liar. If the situation were reversed, the last thing I'd want is someone using me to practise their religious or mystical death rites on ( though I have considered a proper Wake or Viking pyre ). That being said, it seems your heart is in the right place, and that shows compassion and caring. The world can always use more people like that.

Benjamin Button
Like being born - but in reverse.

​

 

[Tyger]

That was a really good post, but I'm a bit concerned about the segment above. I think I would be terrible at "guiding the dying over the threshold" unless it's a gurney over the threshold of the emergency department. I'm too uncertain about afterlives and all the mythology that goes along with it to think I actually know what's really going to happen.

You haven't teased out what you know from what you think - or the thoughts that swirl in your mind. Knowing is beyond thought - there is a difference. Until you make that journey - it will all be fairy tales and fabrications - and uncertainty in your view. For those operating from experience - the certainty is as rock solid as this computer I am typing on here in the U.S. and your computer there in Canada.

The physical part I'm quite certain about however, and most people find that far less comforting. So I'd either be in a position of telling lies or making people uncomfortable, and I'm not a good liar. If the situation were reversed, the last thing I'd want is someone using me to practise their religious or mystical death rites over me ( though I have considered a proper Viking pyre ). That being said, it seems your heart is in the right place, and that shows compassion and caring. The world can always use more people like that.

Obviously, someone who chooses a home death, and a home funeral, has significant sensibilities regarding the 'passing over'. I - and others - do not watch over a transition without being invited to do so. When it comes to death, more so than ever: 'Our intention creates our reality.'

 

[smcder]

. . .

However, there is a further development, beyond the mind. The development of the mind leads to what the mystics named 'the dark night of the soul'. Modern thought dubbed it 'existential despair'. The development of the mind leads to an ever greater and deeper sense of loneliness - it is the very nature of this development which we are all obliged to undergo at this time. The development of the intellect places us at ever greater distance from our 'source' - and we feel abandoned. As the mystical texts state: our teacher can be holding our hand but once in that 'dark night' nothing can aid us but our own strength, determination and persistence. . . .

. . .

That was a lengthy exposition. I hope there are some who are interested. It's a complicated passage - the mind/intellect - but it is essential to press through to the 'other side' - where new capacities are 'born' and perceptions expand. But don't take my word for it - do the inner work. See for yourself. In freedom - you choose the time and day you begin. It is in your hands - in total freedom.

I am interested - thank you for sharing, particularly on the dark night of the soul.

 

[Randall]

You haven't teased out what you know from what you think - or the thoughts that swirl in your mind. Knowing is beyond thought - there is a difference. Until you make that journey - it will all be fairy tales and fabrications - and uncertainty in your view. For those operating from experience - the certainty is as rock solid as this computer I am typing on here in the U.S. and your computer there in Canada.

If you have followed me here for long, you'll know that I go to bat for the relevance of personal experience as valid evidence. However I do so recognizing that personal experience alone is not necessarily sufficient to be certain that the conclusions drawn from it are correct. For example, you may have had some personal experience ( like an OOBE ) that has led you to a particular belief ( non locality of consciousness is real ). However upon further investigation you may also find out ( as has actually happened to one researcher I saw on a TV show ), that the experience you believed was real ( the environment observed during the OOBE ), was in fact nothing like what the real environment was actually like. So in the case of NDEs and OOBEs, there remains the possibility that although you believe what you believe, you have no way to be sure. So it remains a leap of faith that your experience ( whatever it was ) actually represents what you believe it does.

Obviously, someone who chooses a home death, and a home funeral, has significant sensibilities regarding the 'passing over'. I - and others - do not watch over a transition without being invited to do so. When it comes to death, more so than ever: 'Our intention creates our reality.'

I guess the question for the above is, "Invited by who?" The person dying ( who may have no wish for it ), or some relative who shares your beliefs? If the "client" is unable to respond, do you check their Power of Attorney or Will or whatever to determine if your involvement has been asked for? Again, I don't get the impression that your heart is in the wrong place, but these are real considerations. So I'm just wondering what your perspective is on them.

 

[Tyger]

If you have followed me here for long, you'll know that I go to bat for the relevance of personal experience as valid evidence.

Haven't 'followed' you at all. 'Know' you only from where we have interacted on a thread - and you know what that experience has been like. That's about it.

However I do so recognizing that personal experience alone is not necessarily sufficient to be certain that the conclusions drawn from it are correct.

Correct, I agree there - but in a particular kind of way. Interpretations of initial experiences are always bound to be more superficial the first time round. With more experience, more depth of knowledge is usual.

For example, [someone] may have had some personal experience (like an OOBE) that has led [that person] to a particular belief (non-locality of consciousness is real). However upon further investigation [that person] may also find out (as has actually happened to one researcher I saw on a TV show), that the experience [they] believed was real (the environment observed during the OOBE), was in fact nothing like what the real environment was actually like.

To understand the above one must tease out all the conflated assumptions. The 'researcher' clearly needs more experience with their own 'consciousness' (whatever they believe that to be) - and less experience with films like 'Ghost'.

So in the case of NDEs and OOBEs, there remains the possibility that although [someone] believes what [they] believe, [they] have no way to be sure.

That is your belief, ufology - and it's clearly a very strong belief. It is so strong that it becomes a bias that influences how you interpret everything. You are positing certitude by your own standards. Plus you state that there is 'no way to be sure'. You've got it all wrapped up. Discussion over. We can all go home.

So it remains a leap of faith that [someone's] experience (whatever it was) actually represents what [they] believe it does.

Ufology, where do you get your omniscience? You seem to speak not only for yourself, - which is legitimate - but for others. More - you actually pass judgment on 'whatever it was'. You haven't a clue what you're talking about but its going to be a 'leap of faith' and won't be what someone 'believes it is'. Wtf? Can anyone take this seriously? Not me.

Again, this is evidence of your extreme bias. You seem to already have made up your mind - so you posit your beliefs for everyone else. It's not possible to have a significant discussion on the topic (were someone so inclined - which I am not) with anyone so firmly entrenched in their beliefs as you are.

I guess the question for the above is, "Invited by who?" The person dying (who may have no wish for it ), or some relative who shares your beliefs? If the "client" is unable to respond, do you check their Power of Attorney or Will or whatever to determine if your involvement has been asked for? Again, I don't get the impression that your heart is in the wrong place, but these are real considerations. So I'm just wondering what your perspective is on them.

'Client'? What the heck are you talking about?

Play this game with someone else, not with me, please. Some things are just not worth the time. The answer to all your questions - if it's really relevant to anything here (and your business) - is within my previous post. Figure it out. Connect the dots.

 

[Constance]

Where we're at with the issue of consciousness leaves us with two opposing models for our view of the unexplained:

1. Physically generated consciousness
2. Unexplained mystical consciousness

Brain generated consciousness offers a physical model for exploring claims of the unexplained, while unexplained mystical consciousness seems to leave us with nothing substantial to build a coherent theory on.

What happened to phenomenologically generated consciousness (implicit in the hard problem)?

Also, "1. Physically generated consciousness" becomes "Brain generated consciousness" in the next sentence. The latter seems to be the model you prefer, without much or any role played by the body as a whole, as if our bodies are not conscious. One more snag for me is your postulation of 'fields' by which information is exchanged with others and the environment. But our experience and our communication with others are much more direct than the idea of 'fields' implies.

I don't know what you mean by "2. Unexplained mystical consciousness."
Can you clarify?

 

[Randall]

What happened to phenomenologiocally generated consciousness (implicit in the hard problem)?

Phenomenological phenomena are states of mind in and of themselves rather than causal factors. The phenomenological method relies on the description of phenomena as they are given to consciousness, in their immediacy ( Wikipedia ), so in either instance ( physical or mystical ), phenomenology plays a role in the examination of what is taking place within our consciousness ( our waking experience ) rather than what gives rise to it in the first place.

Also, "1. Physically generated consciousness" becomes "Brain generated consciousness" in the next sentence. The latter seems to be the model you prefer, without much or any role played by the body as a whole, as if our bodies are not conscious.

For convenience sake I often refer simply to the brain, but if you review my posts, you'll also see multiple instances where I refer to consciousness as an emergent property of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state. I hope that clarifies somewhat.

One more snag for me is your postulation of 'fields' by which information is exchanged with others and the environment. But our experience and our communication with others are much more direct than the idea of 'fields' implies.

This is where things get much more theoretical ( in a general sense as opposed to being some sort of scientific theory ). The fields I'm referring to at the base level are what are generically referred to as "brain waves" and are measurable EM fields generated by the brain itself. This much we are certain of. They are produced as part of our normal functioning brain, and they seem to correspond directly to perceptual stimuli, so the evidence indicates that they reflect our real-time experience. However the resolution to which we can map these fields is very low ( hundreds of millions of overlapping neural connections all at once ).

What I and those who I seem to have crossed paths with in this search are proposing, is that consciousness is a physical but non-material state brought about by the configuration and interaction of these fields with the underlying transmitters and receptors in the brain that give rise to these fields at the cellular level. As the fields interact with our brain cells the result is an electrochemical reaction that is processed through the brain's neural network, resulting in a change to the EM fields, and the process repeats in a dynamic loop like fashion. This is why I now have serious doubts that a hard wired linear processing system alone will result in the emergence of consciousness.

I don't know what you mean by "2. Unexplained mystical consciousness."
Can you clarify?

By unexplained mystical consciousness, I mean that what we experience as consciousness is the result of supernatural forces beyond the grasp of science, critical thinking, or other rational inquiry, thereby requiring a leap of faith, usually in some mythological deity or non-physical state of affairs to account for its existence.

 

[Constance]

Phenomenological phenomena are states of mind in and of themselves rather than causal factors.

Where did you get that idea?

The phenomenological method relies on the description of phenomena as they are given to consciousness, in their immediacy ( Wikipedia ), so in either instance ( physical or mystical ), phenomenology plays a role in the examination of what is taking place within our consciousness ( our waking experience ) rather than what gives rise to it in the first place.

I'm sorry, ufology, but you're going to have go deeper than wikipedia for an understanding of phenomenology. I can suggest some sources if you like.

For convenience sake I often refer simply to the brain, but if you review my posts, you'll also see multiple instances where I refer to consciousness as an emergent property of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state. I hope that clarifies somewhat.

How do you see the body as being involved in the emergence of consciousness in the brain?

This is where things get much more theoretical ( in a general sense as opposed to being some sort of scientific theory ). The fields I'm referring to at the base level are what are generically referred to as "brain waves" and are measurable EM fields generated by the brain itself. This much we are certain of. They are produced as part of our normal functioning brain, and they seem to correspond directly to perceptual stimuli, so the evidence indicates that they reflect our real-time experience. However the resolution to which we can map these fields is very low ( hundreds of millions of overlapping neural connections all at once )

Where do "perceptual stimuli" originate, in your view? If our brain waves "reflect our real-time experience," what is our real-time experience an experience of ?

What I and those who I seem to have crossed paths with in this search are proposing, is that consciousness is a physical but non-material state brought about by the configuration and interaction of these fields with the underlying transmitters and receptors in the brain that give rise to these fields at the cellular level. As the fields interact with our brain cells the result is an electrochemical reaction that is processed through the brain's neural network, resulting in a change to the EM fields, and the process repeats in a dynamic loop like fashion. This is why I now have serious doubts that a hard wired linear processing system alone will result in the emergence of consciousness.

So consciousness in your view is a remote phenomenon consisting of the brain's "transmittors and receptors" directly receiving information from EM fields and downloading it at the cellular level from whence the brain's own EM fields arise generating an electromagnetic loop? That doesn't sound anything like lived conscious experience to me.

By unexplained mystical consciousness, I mean that what we experience as consciousness is the result of supernatural forces beyond the grasp of science, critical thinking, or other rational inquiry, thereby requiring a leap of faith, usually in some mythological deity or non-physical state of affairs to account for its existence.

I don't remember that category as being part of the bulk of the discussion in this thread? Who represented that category as an explanation of consciousness in this conversation?

 

[Randall]

I'm sorry, ufology, but you're going to have go deeper than wikipedia for an understanding of phenomenology.

If you dispute the quote from Wikipedia, then please explain why you think it's not accurate by addressing the point(s) it makes through the use of concise relevant evidence that nullifies its validity. Throwing a wall of text or books at me to sift through until I find the relevant points, isn't going to help. I'm willing to work the issue through with you, bit by bit, not volume by volume.

Where do "perceptual stimuli" originate, in your view? If our brain waves "reflect our real-time experience," what is our real-time experience an experience of ?

The stimulus response: Stimulus (physiology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So consciousness in your view is a remote phenomenon consisting of the brain's "transmittors and receptors" directly receiving information from EM fields and downloading it at the cellular level from whence the brain's own EM fields arise generating an electromagnetic loop? That doesn't sound anything like lived conscious experience to me

Not exactly. The idea is that the EM fields are both generated by and received by the brain, and the theory I'm pursuing ( not what I believe ) is that what emerges as a result of this situation is a consciousness experience.

I don't remember that category as being part of the bulk of the discussion in this thread? Who represented that category as an explanation of consciousness in this conversation?

It's somewhere back there in the chain of threads and posts. I'm not suggesting it's you're specific view. But while you're asking, what is your specific view anyway? Do you have one, or are you more like me in that you are exploring different possibilities?

 

[Constance]

If you dispute the quote from Wikipedia, then please explain why you think it's not accurate by addressing the point(s) it makes through the use of concise relevant evidence that nullifies its validity. Throwing a wall of text or books at me to sift through until I find the relevant points, isn't going to help. I'm willing to work the issue through with you, bit by bit, not volume by volume.

How about just reading an encyclopedia entry then? This entry at the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will straighten out the misconceptions you got from wikipedia.

Phenomenology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Let's leave the rest of this for tomorrow.

The stimulus response:

Stimulus (physiology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus_(physiology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus_(physiology)

Not exactly. The idea is that the EM fields are both generated by and received by the brain, and the theory I'm pursuing ( not what I believe ) is that what emerges as a result of this situation is a consciousness experience.

It's somewhere back there in the chain of threads and posts. I'm not suggesting it's you're specific view. But while you're asking, what is your specific view anyway? Do you have one, or are you more like me in that you are exploring different possibilities?[/quote]

 

[Randall]

How about just reading an encyclopedia entry then?

I'm a nighthawk, and a fast enough reader to see that the Stanford Encyclopedia entry doesn't contradict the Wikipedia entry with respect to what I said, so it must be something in our respective interpretations. See you tomorrow Constance .

 

[smcder]

. . .

By unexplained mystical consciousness, I mean that what we experience as consciousness is the result of supernatural forces beyond the grasp of science, critical thinking, or other rational inquiry, thereby requiring a leap of faith, usually in some mythological deity or non-physical state of affairs to account for its existence.

I don't remember that category as being part of the bulk of the discussion in this thread? Who represented that category as an explanation of consciousness in this conversation?

I don't think unexplained mystical consciousness was part of the main or bulk of the discussion . . . there was discussion early on of Ufology's own mystical experience, I'm not sure if that was on this thread or another - or perhaps there is confusion with Colin McGinn's "New Mysterianism" and the concept of "cognitive closure"?

Cognitive closure (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cognitive closure is the proposition that human minds are constitutionally incapable of solving certain perennial philosophical problems

I mentioned McGinn in a few posts and referred to his website and a couple of specific papers:

For completeness sake on this thread - this link has the classic McGinn paper that I mentioned a couple of times (at the bottom)

Colin McGinn: the New Mysterian and cognitive closure.

that paper is The Problem of Philosophy:http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/consciousness97/papers/ProblemOfPhilosophy.html

this one might be of some interest too, about the location of consciousness:

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/consciousness97/papers/ConsciousnessSpace.html