Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[Jeff Davis]

To me, the single greatest problem in science is the type of familiarity that you are lauding here. I understand the need for continuity, but I also understand the value of improvisation. I find it extremely disturbing, and indeed, akin to looking into the rear view mirror in an effort to move forward.

What familiarity am I lauding? I'm pointing to academic philosophy because part of what we are talking about is a problem in academic philosophy, so it seems appropriate . . . there is a history there and terminology is agreed on or openly discussed, so we know what we're talking about. And I think it's important to know where we've been so we don't mistake familiar ground for the unknown.. Beyond that, I acknowledged that academics is not the be all, end all - so, in its place, it's not disturbing to me.

I would much rather have to struggle and stretch to understand new concepts rather than to limit my progressive understanding by way of a need to be familiar with the language of what is IMO clearly an unknown at this time.

I agree and I don't think I said anything in conflict with this - I don't see why we wouldn't want to know what others have thought about the subject, otherwise we re-invent the wheel . . . but yes, it's very clearly, to me, almost a complete unknown and that's why it's called the "hard" problem. Chalmers is on YouTube and he's a pretty lively, clever guy - (within the confines of academia - of course!)

We need a most unfamiliar vocabulary IMO. One that isn't stomping around knee deep in the muck of conformity. Namely, because we are certainly most unfamiliar with what we are attempting to better understand here.

Well, I think you certainly have that! The problem is, I can't really seem to understand it and I'm sorry for that - as I said, my lack of understand is a real barrier to communicating about your ideas.

And so I ask you, simply, what do you understand with respect to consciousness apart from a consensus of terminology and philosophy here?

Isn't using philosophy to understand consciousness more or less like a computer attempting to repair or understand itself?

 

[Jeff Davis]

I guess I have yet to run across scientifically documented cases of this occurring that satisfies my B.S. meter. It is one thing to say that it appeared that you left your body and its another thing entirely to have actually done so.

If you could project your consciousness outside of the confines of the brain facilitating it wouldn't your consciousness still be localized to an individualized and unique perspective? That is to say you wouldn't be a loose bit of awareness floating about without context.

No. Our interactions with the medium of Consciousness is what makes that very sentient perspective possible. The "uniqueness" you refer to *is* sentience. Sentience is the primary base line of all self relevant experience.

 

[smcder]

And so I ask you, simply, what do you understand with respect to consciousness apart from a consensus of terminology and philosophy here?

Isn't using philosophy to understand consciousness more or less like a computer attempting to repair or understand itself?

not much! but, the consensus is the part we can talk about . . . which I admit is like looking for your car keys under the street lamp, just because that is where the light is . . .

Isn't using philosophy to understand consciousness more or less like a computer attempting to repair or understand itself?

I don't know - maybe, but I don't have a commitment to the computer analogy - I think there are real problems with comparing the two . . . but then again, there are self-correcting codes out there and evolutionary algorithms, so just because you can't understand it all, doesn't mean you should make no effort to understand what you can -

 

[trainedobserver]

No. Our interactions with the medium of Consciousness is what makes that very sentient perspective possible. The "uniqueness" you refer to *is* sentience. Sentience is the primary base line of all self relevant experience.

What do you mean by "the medium of Consciousness?"

The material or construct on which consciousness plays, is stored, or exists? That appears to be the brain. Is there a case of consciousness existing sans brain?

 

[Jeff Davis]

not much! but, the consensus is the part we can talk about . . . which I admit is like looking for your car keys under the street lamp, just because that is where the light is . . .

Isn't using philosophy to understand consciousness more or less like a computer attempting to repair or understand itself?

I don't know - maybe, but I don't have a commitment to the computer analogy - I think there are real problems with comparing the two . . . but then again, there are self-correcting codes out there and evolutionary algorithms, so just because you can't understand it all, doesn't mean you should make no effort to understand what you can -

We can very much talk of that which is not consensus too, can't we?

IMO, this would seem fine in light of such a deep and perplexing chasm of consideration. Within the deepest of truths, yet unknown and replicable, do we ever have anything apart from acceptable metaphors, no matter how seemingly acceptable they may be? Think on this. What power do we give the fallible mind that is known to fail? Think back to the Ouija board. Think back to Edgar Cayce. Think back to the Akashic Record.

Knowledge is not something best derived through schools of learning. The ear mark of certain successful intuition is survival. All knowledge is available to those that claim the curious precipice that overshadows their fate. In other words, if you want to know something badly enough, badly enough to where the lack of that knowledge represents a specific focused threat to your survival, the mind will supply that information to preserve itself. This is certainly not the only way to access as much as earlier examples well show, but rather it serves to illuminate the value of improvisational intuitive thinking. It has been used by countless inventors including that dastardly fellow known to history as none other than Thomas Alva Edison. He used it constantly.

"We have gone so far backward attempting to go forward that we think we are actually getting somewhere." Who said that? I don't know either, but I'd sure be willing to bet they were talking about consciousness.

 

[Jeff Davis]

What do you mean by "the medium of Consciousness?"

The material or construct on which consciousness plays, is stored, or exists? That appears to be the brain. Is there a case of consciousness existing sans brain?

I propose that consciousness is a translational medium through which information propagates. This translated information is stored in a primary experiential memory located in the brain. It is retrieved and presented from the memory (this is why, and has been shown scientifically, that the memory itself can contaminate initial perceptions) via more attributable powers of the brain (cognition) just post experience.

I also propose that consciousness is non local and can be used to access all possible knowledge including the existent universe. Do not get me wrong. I do not believe this can EVER happen sans the brain. Consciousness is always here. It's just another aspect of our universal environment that we are presently identifiably unfamiliar with.

Is black matter consciousness? I hope not, cause so far, via our best efforts this time around, we've come up empty handed. Shucks! Don't despair however, as scientists say it's no big deal and that they will be performing many more tests which are expected to show some very interesting results, I hope. LUX dark-matter search comes up empty - physicsworld.com

 

[Randall]

What makes it not say that OBEs are an illusion caused by stress or injury circumventing normal operation?

Are there any documented and verifiable cases where someone on an OBE read a chalk board in another room or whatever? I've heard of it, read about a couple of cases, but these weren't that convincing and required some amount of faith to believe. It has been my experience that folks who claim to be able to do this on demand refuse to give any proof that it is happening. I'm thinking Tom Campbell. If this were occurring as you think, someone would be able to demonstrate it irrefutably with a very simple experiment or two. It would revolutionize science, espionage, and commerce.

There's no verifiable evidence. I've looked all over for it. The only evidence that would count as verifiable that I've found are the cases where messages in operating rooms have been placed up above and out of sight of the patient so that the only way they could see it is to float up out of their bodies and see it. Not a single case has ever been reported where these types of experiment have yielded positive results. The rest have been urban legend, or something that spontaneously happened and seems verifiable but in reality no controls were setup, or hearsay. That's not to say that the experience doesn't happen. It's just that interpreting that experience as non-locality of consciousness seems to be based on insufficient evidence.

 

[smcder]

There's no verifiable evidence. I've looked all over for it. The only evidence that would count as verifiable that I've found are the cases where messages in operating rooms have been placed up above and out of sight of the patient so that the only way they could see it is to float up out of their bodies and see it. Not a single case has ever been reported where these types of experiment have yielded positive results. The rest have been urban legend, or something that spontaneously happened and seems verifiable but in reality no controls were setup, or hearsay. That's not to say that the experience doesn't happen. It's just that interpreting that experience as non-locality of consciousness seems to be based on insufficient evidence.

Sam Parnia - the Aware Study, that's what I was looking for, ongoing study with updates, I have only heard about it from the Skeptiko podcasts, don't have any familiarity yet with it - this was originally in response to Trained Observer . . . but he'll see it here!

What motivates (assuming you are still looking for evidence) your search?

 

[Randall]

Sam Parnia - the Aware Study, that's what I was looking for, ongoing study with updates, I have only heard about it from the Skeptiko podcasts, don't have any familiarity yet with it - this was originally in response to Trained Observer . . . but he'll see it here!

I posted a link someplace to a PDF of one of the types of studies I've mentioned. But I don't recall exactly where, and with over 4000 posts, I'll have to apologize in advance for not digging it up. It seems like I go through the same debate with somebody about it once or twice a year, and it always turns out the same, more belief and jumping to conclusions than substantial evidence.

What motivates (assuming you are still looking for evidence) your search?

I've always been drawn to the non-mundane. UFOs are fascinating on every level, not just because the topic elicits discussion and investigation into associated science, entertainment, mythology, paranormal, religion and more, but because the phenomenon itself is real and from beyond the boundaries and constructs of our civilization. When it comes to the topic of consciousness, it's a similar thing in that it's obviously real to those of us who aren't robots and can't visualize . But despite the obviousness of it, it remains a mystery on the same level as the nature of existence itself, and that is a question that as a co-worker of mine once put it, is the "biggie". The quest for an answer to the fundamental nature of our realm has compelled certain people throughout history to seek answers to the big question. So here we are. Is there a deeper underlying reason for this quest? I tend to think so. But that's something to elaborate on in a different post.

 

[smcder]

I posted a link someplace to a PDF of one of the types of studies I've mentioned. But I don't recall exactly where, and with over 4000 posts, I'll have to apologize in advance for not digging it up. It seems like I go through the same debate with somebody about it once or twice a year, and it always turns out the same, more belief and jumping to conclusions than substantial evidence.

Were you aware of the AWARE study?

I happened to listen to a DMR broadcast over the weekend - August 12th when Gene was on and they read your question:

• Do either of you have any remaining doubts that Earth has been host to alien craft? And to be clear about what "alien craft" means, I mean a material vehicle from beyond the constructs of global human civilization including any secret manmade projects, possibly but not necessarily ET.
• If yes, why do you still not believe?
• If no, was there a definitive moment or sequence of events that you can share that finally convinced you?
  
  So I am making the assumption that you mean the same thing in the statements below:
• 
  but because the phenomenon itself is real and from beyond the boundaries and constructs of our civilization
  
  a material vehicle from beyond the constructs of global human civilization including any secret manmade projects, possibly but not necessarily ET
  and if I remember, the guys did have doubts - but you are saying there is verifiable evidence for this, correct?

 

[Constance]

trained observer wrote:

“What does it say that these things can be recreated experimentally? Through some simple trickery a person can come to think there consciousness is outside of their bodies or that things are part of their body that aren't. When you operate outside of your design specs expect anomalous and unusual behaviors and results.”

When I was 21, I had a spontaneous OBE and what I got from it (besides an enormous shock) was indeed a demonstration that I could function outside of what you call my ‘design specs’. I found my consciousness suddenly up near the ceiling in a far corner of the room where I sat reading. I could see the back of my physical self across the room, still bent over the book, my blue Harris tweed coat hanging over the back of the chair I was sitting on. I [my conscious point of view] moved along toward the left, up there near the ceiling, and then found myself next to another consciousness also observing me and whose thoughts I overheard. This was apparently some consciousness that had long been related to, familiar with, my biographical self. I sensed that the consciousness was female and older than me and overheard her thinking that “she” (referring to my biographical embodied self across the room) “is really in a mess.” That other consciousness was calm, not at all distressed, taking my situation in stride as if it were ‘no big deal’. I too was calm during this OBE (the only one I’ve had). But almost immediately after witnessing the presence of the other consciousness {separate from my usual consciousness but somehow contained within it}, I found my own consciousness suddenly back in my body. I was fairly mind-blown at that point, gathered up my coat and books, and went immediately to the university counselor’s office. After I described to him what had just happened, he called a nearby neurologist who agreed to see me in an hour. The latter could find no neurological explanation for my experience, prescribed a tranquilizer, and sent me back to school. I had no idea what an OBE was at the time nor did I begin to contemplate what consciousness is until much later in life. I still remember this experience as if it happened recently.

 

[Tyger]

From a dear friend who understands these things -

"Lucid Dreaming takes time, discipline and practice. This is a very good, simple way of how to practice each evening. Be sure your mind is clear of everyday thoughts so that way you can concentrate better."

"Lay down and go to sleep. This works best if you are extremely tired. Lay on your back with your arms at your side and eyes closed. STAY PERFECTLY STILL. You must stay awake. Your brian will send signals to your body to see if you are ready to sleep. These signals include: getting an itch, changing your body position, wanting to blink or move your eyeballs (remember your eyes should be closed). YOU MUST IGNORE ALL OF THESE IMPULSES. After about 20-30 minutes you will feel a weight on your chest; you may even hear weird noises. You are now in sleep paralysis. If you open your eyes you will begin to hallucinate (dream with your eyes open) and you will not be able to move your body. Your body is now completely asleep. Now that you are aware that you are dreaming, you can shut your eyes and begin to dream instantly. You will be fully aware you are dreaming and can now (with some practice) control your dreams."

 

[Constance]

trained observer also wrote:

“It [the brain] "experiences" its own operation as awareness.”


Awareness of what? Experience of what? Is there such a thing as contentless consciousness? Husserl recognized, after great analytical labor, that consciousness is always consciousness of something.

 

[Randall]

Were you aware of the AWARE study?

I happened to listen to a DMR broadcast over the weekend - August 12th when Gene was on and they read your question:

• Do either of you have any remaining doubts that Earth has been host to alien craft? And to be clear about what "alien craft" means, I mean a material vehicle from beyond the constructs of global human civilization including any secret manmade projects, possibly but not necessarily ET.
• If yes, why do you still not believe?
• If no, was there a definitive moment or sequence of events that you can share that finally convinced you?
  
  So I am making the assumption that you mean the same thing in the statements below:
• 
  but because the phenomenon itself is real and from beyond the boundaries and constructs of our civilization
  
  a material vehicle from beyond the constructs of global human civilization including any secret manmade projects, possibly but not necessarily ET
  and if I remember, the guys did have doubts - but you are saying there is verifiable evidence for this, correct?

What I'm saying is exactly what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. A discussion of the evidence results in the finding that there is sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to believe that UFOs ( as defined above ) are real. However that is different from scientifically valid material evidence ( which is also verifiable ). A comparison of the evidence for OOBEs and NDE's ( as evidence of non-local consciousness ) pales in comparison to evidence for UFOs. But the other reason behind my statement is my firsthand personal experience, not hearsay or anecdote. Whether I can prove that to someone else isn't relevant to the validity of my statement. It's only relevant to its believability by others.

 

[Randall]

trained observer also wrote:

“It [the brain] "experiences" its own operation as awareness.”


Awareness of what? Experience of what? Is there such a thing as contentless consciousness? Husserl recognized, after great analytical labor, that consciousness is always consciousness of something.

Welcome back Constance .

 

[Constance]

Hi Ufology. I was just about to comment on one of your posts in this thread (most interesting thread):

Ufology: “ …consciousness as we're discussing it here is a state of subjective awareness ( experience ) of one's thoughts, actions, and perceptions.”

and

“So to be clear, I use the phrase "waking state" only to indicate that when we are not awake, consciousness is not a factor and when we are awake it is. This doesn't include the conversation we could get into about in-between states ( like lucid dreaming ), but I just don't want to have to write a paper every time I give a brief description of what we're talking about. For all intent and purposes, your description to quote:, "... the property constituting being 'awake'." is actually just fine. We can either be awake in the here and now, or be "awake in a dream". Either is an acceptable state of consciousness. However if we're not awake anyplace, there's no evidence of consciousness."

I think we have to talk about lucid dreaming, and fortuitously Tyger -- hi Tyger -- just posted something about it. Since you recognize consciousness as operating in dreams in general, we need to explore what that means as well. We are always ourselves in our dreams, if I'm not mistaken, so self-consciousness continues to operate. In addition, we often dream about events or ideas or issues from our waking lives. Most significantly, our dreams are also accessed by our personal subconsciousnesses, as well as the collective consciousness. I think these tributaries of consciousness provide essential pathways to expanding the sense of what we mean by consciousness.

 

[Randall]

Were you aware of the AWARE study?

I may have been aware of it and not realized it because I've seen and heard briefs about more than one similar sounding project. Below is a quote from the AWARE website:

"The targets are emotionally laden pictures (from the International Affective Picture System) presented on a wide screen computer monitor. The laptop computer is placed on a height adjustable trolley support. The trolley support is adjusted at a height of 7 feet from the ground in the operating room. Pictures are visible only from the ceiling. The duration of each picture is 60 seconds. A computer controlled clock allows us to know exactly at what time the pictures are presented.

After the surgical procedure, patients will be given an information sheet and in a recorded interview, asked an open question regarding their experiences while ‘unconscious’. No terms related to being near-death/out-of-body will be mentioned. Their experiences will be standardised according to the 16 point Greyson questionnaire, in which a near-death experience is defined as a score of 7 or over. Should patients claim to have been aware of actual events taking place during cardiocirculatory arrest, then they should also be able to see the targets. If such experiences are merely false memories formed after the event then patients would not be expected to identify the targets."​

The website says that no specific information will be released from the study until the study is complete. However the PDF I mentioned was from a study of some 50 patients ( if I recall correctly ), none of whom recall any OOBE during their period of clinical death. This raises another issue. If the assumption that we all have some immortal spirit that separates from the body and facilitates continuity of consciousness, why doesn't it happen to everyone? By now there should be sufficient evidence to prove the claim. But there's not. Ultimately I predict that the results of the AWARE study will yield no conclusive results. Perhaps some small percentage of test subjects will claim to recall something that seems striking, but upon closer analysis it will be revealed that it's only based on a "statistical probability" rather than anything we can be sure about.

Specifically, the International Affective Picture System is a collection of over 1,000 colored pictures in the database. These pictures are representative of daily experiences such as household furniture to extreme encounters such as a mutilated body ( Wikipedia ). Therefore what are the chances of someone having a dreamlike experience that combines their hospital perceptions, knowledge that they are part of the experiment, and representations of daily experiences? It would seem to me on the surface that their chance of coincidentally visualizing one of these 1000 "daily experiences" is one in one thousand that they'll be at least close.

What's needed aren't vague images of everyday images, but a stimulus that is specific and unusual, yet easy to remember. One of the examples I recall used scrolling display of repeating words chosen by a random algorithm. To me this would seem to be much more reliable than a fixed set of "daily experiences".

 

[smcder]

What I'm saying is exactly what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. A discussion of the evidence results in the finding that there is sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to believe that UFOs ( as defined above ) are real. However that is different from scientifically valid material evidence ( which is also verifiable ). A comparison of the evidence for OOBEs and NDE's ( as evidence of non-local consciousness ) pales in comparison to evidence for UFOs. But the other reason behind my statement is my firsthand personal experience, not hearsay or anecdote. Whether I can prove that to someone else isn't relevant to the validity of my statement. It's only relevant to its believability by others.

Yes, you are very precise and I wasn't questioning you - I was making sure I hadn't made any assumptions. There is ambiguity in almost any statement (and even if there isn't, believe me I will find it). From what I understood Don and Gene did not seem willing to agree, and much of what I have heard lately has also moved away from your definition as I understand it - so I was very interested in your statement and the confidence behind it.

You have had some very interesting first hand experiences and I'm interested in both types of evidence.

A comparison of the evidence for OOBEs and NDE's ( as evidence of non-local consciousness ) pales in comparison to evidence for UFOs.

That's what I want to see. Neither topic is much covered in the mainstream peer-reviewed journals that I know of - and some search engines have "filter bubbles" and I am growing wary of Wikipedia, and UFO research has moved online, at least that seems to me a common lament on various podcasts and blogs - so that's what one has to work with.

I've not been that interested in NDEs but it does seem to have a bearing on the consciousness discussion we've been having on this thread and Skeptiko often makes the claim, quite boldly, that the evidence is there and is very solid and will changed everything, bold claims - that's why I'm beginning to look over on their site as it is the focus of the podcast.

Any sources you can point to are appreciated.

 

[smcder]

I may have been aware of it and not realized it because I've seen and heard briefs about more than one similar sounding project. Below is a quote from the AWARE website:

"The targets are emotionally laden pictures (from the International Affective Picture System) presented on a wide screen computer monitor. The laptop computer is placed on a height adjustable trolley support. The trolley support is adjusted at a height of 7 feet from the ground in the operating room. Pictures are visible only from the ceiling. The duration of each picture is 60 seconds. A computer controlled clock allows us to know exactly at what time the pictures are presented.

After the surgical procedure, patients will be given an information sheet and in a recorded interview, asked an open question regarding their experiences while ‘unconscious’. No terms related to being near-death/out-of-body will be mentioned. Their experiences will be standardised according to the 16 point Greyson questionnaire, in which a near-death experience is defined as a score of 7 or over. Should patients claim to have been aware of actual events taking place during cardiocirculatory arrest, then they should also be able to see the targets. If such experiences are merely false memories formed after the event then patients would not be expected to identify the targets."​

The website says that no specific information will be released from the study until the study is complete. However the PDF I mentioned was from a study of some 50 patients ( if I recall correctly ), none of whom recall any OOBE during their period of clinical death. This raises another issue. If the assumption that we all have some immortal spirit that separates from the body and facilitates continuity of consciousness, why doesn't it happen to everyone? By now there should be sufficient evidence to prove the claim. But there's not. Ultimately I predict that the results of the AWARE study will yield no conclusive results. Perhaps some small percentage of test subjects will claim to recall something that seems striking, but upon closer analysis it will be revealed that it's only based on a "statistical probability" rather than anything we can be sure about.

Specifically, the International Affective Picture System is a collection of over 1,000 colored pictures in the database. These pictures are representative of daily experiences such as household furniture to extreme encounters such as a mutilated body ( Wikipedia ). Therefore what are the chances of someone having a dreamlike experience that combines their hospital perceptions, knowledge that they are part of the experiment, and representations of daily experiences? It would seem to me on the surface that their chance of coincidentally visualizing one of these 1000 "daily experiences" is one in one thousand that they'll be at least close.

What's needed aren't vague images of everyday images, but a stimulus that is specific and unusual, yet easy to remember. One of the examples I recall used scrolling display of repeating words chosen by a random algorithm. To me this would seem to be much more reliable than a fixed set of "daily experiences".

If the assumption that we all have some immortal spirit that separates from the body and facilitates continuity of consciousness, why doesn't it happen to everyone?

I've got vague connections forming around Panpsychism and these experiences instead of a one to one soul issued to each body . . . but, again - vague. We all seem to have times when consciousness is obliterated but that report is dependent on memory, so one could always say it does happen to everyone or that some weren't truly "dead" (a WHOLE can of worms there b/c we seem to be able to pick up finer finer brain activity) - I dunno.

On the images, how do you get a "dead" patient to pay attention to a screen or any particular stimulus. Is it ethical to ask them to look around if they happen to separate from their body during surgery?

Perhaps some small percentage of test subjects will claim to recall something that seems striking, but upon closer analysis it will be revealed that it's only based on a "statistical probability" rather than anything we can be sure about.

My sense is that will always be one interpretation of closer analysis. I witnessed an accident a few years back and got a call from the insurance company about what I saw. I went back to the scene to see how I did and got pretty much everything wrong . . . and, to be fair - under the trained scrutiny of an attorney, anyone's testimony can and will fall apart.

So there will always be those arguments, but it does seem like we would have some instances by now, and maybe they are there, somewhere in those striking cases you mention but then get lost in the uncertainty. My overall sense about all of these kinds of questions -and it seems to be happening even in mainstream topics, even in mathematics - is that each claim has a counter-claim, and the balance gets finer and finer, the "God of the gaps" to borrow a phrase, narrows on both sides -

 

[smcder]

From a dear friend who understands these things -

"Lucid Dreaming takes time, discipline and practice. This is a very good, simple way of how to practice each evening. Be sure your mind is clear of everyday thoughts so that way you can concentrate better."

"Lay down and go to sleep. This works best if you are extremely tired. Lay on your back with your arms at your side and eyes closed. STAY PERFECTLY STILL. You must stay awake. Your brian will send signals to your body to see if you are ready to sleep. These signals include: getting an itch, changing your body position, wanting to blink or move your eyeballs (remember your eyes should be closed). YOU MUST IGNORE ALL OF THESE IMPULSES. After about 20-30 minutes you will feel a weight on your chest; you may even hear weird noises. You are now in sleep paralysis. If you open your eyes you will begin to hallucinate (dream with your eyes open) and you will not be able to move your body. Your body is now completely asleep. Now that you are aware that you are dreaming, you can shut your eyes and begin to dream instantly. You will be fully aware you are dreaming and can now (with some practice) control your dreams."

wake back to bed technique always worked better for me (setting alarm for 90, 180, 270 minutes in, staying awake for a bit and then going back to sleep) because I can't seem to keep still - I can, however, move pretty reliably from a waking state into a kind of hypnagogic state with contol of imagery - but may or may not fall asleep from this state.