Randall
J. Randall Murphy
That's really interesting, because historically, the case was exactly opposite of that, where binary systems were deemed to make planetary system less stable. Funny how things change when someone actually does the math !
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread
- Thread starter Randall
- Start date
Free episodes:
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
considering how common binary systems are this could be quite positive for life out there..... but then again time will tell.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Free Will and Paranormal Beliefs by Ken Mogi
www.frontiersin.org
"Free will is one of the fundamental aspects of human cognition. In the context of cognitive neuroscience, various experiments on time perception, sensorimotor coordination, and agency suggest the possibility that it is a robust illusion (a feeling independent of actual causal relationship with actions) constructed by neural mechanisms. Humans are known to suffer from various cognitive biases and failures, and the sense of free will might be one of them. Here I report a positive correlation between the belief in free will and paranormal beliefs (UFO, reincarnation, astrology, and psi)."
Free will and paranormal beliefs
Free will is one of the fundamental aspects of human cognition. In the context of cognitive neuroscience, various experiments on time perception, sensorimotor coordination, and agency suggest the possibility that it is a robust illusion (a feeling independent of actual causal relationship with...
henris42
Paranormal Maven
Hmm, I'd like to add some visions of thought.
Myself, I take more Hynek type of approach. I do firmly believe we have some strangeness out there. Data must be gathered, especially physical evidence. Maybe someday, that would lead to a breakthrough.
- Physics is far from ready. I don't give that much value on quoting Einstein as the fundamental thruth. Nor Quantum mech, or string theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Heim theory (WTF!) or anything else at this point.
- There are fundamental issues with time travel. It really looks like no-go, or we really have type IV Everett multiverse, where everything that can happen, happen. (read David Deutch on that one). I'm super sceptical on block time ideas, although one with fixed block past could actually make sense.
Myself, I take more Hynek type of approach. I do firmly believe we have some strangeness out there. Data must be gathered, especially physical evidence. Maybe someday, that would lead to a breakthrough.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
That all sounds like a reasonable and responsible approach to take. However I'd be interested in knowing what your view of "fundamental truth" is, and what you think the "fundamental issues" with time travel are. I couldn't find a "Type IV Everett Multiverse" but I did find a "Level IV" multiverse classification that appears to be a model proposed by Max Tegmark [ SOURCE ]
If there is such a thing as a Type IV Everett Multiverse, can you please provide links to freely available source material? Or provide a citation so that I can see if the book is available from our local library? I'd rather not have to purchase a physical copy.
marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
Hi Randall, sorry I've been away so long. The core problem as I see it with the "brain as a consciousness receiver" idea is that we would need to determine how information actually gets transferred, and from where.
If the universe is essentially mediated through information transfer, then isolating a brain from the 'normal' means of information transfer should render someone dead, or at least unconscious. Yet, people hang out inside Faraday cages and the like stay both alive and conscious.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Hey welcome back
Also a very good point. I have also often found myself echoing your logical conclusion that consciousness must be something physical in order for it to interact with our physical selves.Something of particular interest that I ran across lately is one of Persinger's experiments in which two subjects in separate rooms were exposed to carefully controlled EM fields. Then when one of them had a light shone into their eyes, the brain readings of the other person had a corresponding reaction. I've been trying to find out more about this experiment, but the going is slow since Persinger's death. However if this is true, and in the context it seems to have been presented, then the ramifications could be enormous.
Last edited:
marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
Hey welcome back
Something of particular interest that I ran across lately is one of Persinger's experiments in which two subjects in separate rooms were exposed to carefully controlled EM fields. Then when one of them had a light shone into their eyes, the brain readings of the other person had a corresponding reaction. I've been trying to find out more about this experiment, but the going is slow since Persinger's death. However if this is true, and in the context it seems to have been presented, then the ramifications could be enormous.
Never heard about that experiment, it would indeed be interesting.
As a guy that's had a couple of 'psychic-ish' experiences myself, I know there's something going on. The problem is one of information transfer - and an easy answer is 'well it must be the same thing that transfers information with entangled particles.'
The problem I see there is two-fold: 1. there may not actually be any information transferred between entangled particles - it may just be the way the universe works, and 2. no information transfer is actually possible via entanglement, because it's actually measuring randomness. You know they're entangled, but if you're on one end of the message, you don't know that anything has actually happened to the other particle, because they're both behaving randomly. They just have the same random behaviour (as I understand it). Besides this would seem to violate both causality and relativity.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Indeed. No response yet from the grad student I contacted. Will update as more progress is made.
I did run across an article fairly recently that said they'd figured out a way to use entanglement to communicate, or at least provide useful information, but I don't recall exactly where to find it. If I'm not mistaken the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment also uses the principle.
BTW: We should get you on the show again in the not too distant future, if not just for a casual shop-talk episode. We might even have an opening this Friday if you happen to be around.
Last edited:
marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
What time Friday are you thinking?
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
I'm not sure if we'll do an ATP on Friday now or not because we've had a major shuffle of guests this week including a no-show. But we should still plan for a round table shop-talk type discussion with yourself and maybe one or two others in the not too distant future. I'll know more tomorrow.
henris42
Paranormal Maven
I think it was in The Fabric of Reality - Wikipedia, but that might be the cardboard head of mine. But anycase in Everett, there is no time travel as you think of it. Everything that can happen, happen. If this is the reality, there is no grandfather paradox.
henris42
Paranormal Maven
Oh, and on those "fundamental truth" things..
I cannot say I'm spiritual at all. I've never had any such experiences. So I'm doubtful on any fundametal truth in there, and I'm not looking for the meaning of life.
If the reality (not universe, but the thing behind) is infinitely old, we can be just a glitch. Like weather, if the system is big enough, it will have chaos in it.
Or, if this is indeed a simulation, someone could be just having good time playing alien version on "Populous".
I cannot say I'm spiritual at all. I've never had any such experiences. So I'm doubtful on any fundametal truth in there, and I'm not looking for the meaning of life.
If the reality (not universe, but the thing behind) is infinitely old, we can be just a glitch. Like weather, if the system is big enough, it will have chaos in it.
Or, if this is indeed a simulation, someone could be just having good time playing alien version on "Populous".
ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM
Whittingham
The same can be said for the ongoing 'Merry Go Round ' over the Bentwaters Case. Those who are pushing the 'Blue Beam' agenda are way out of the ball park. Instead , Socorro Case gives a clue to the historical element which does not include the so called 'secret space program' The excellent U.A. P investigator Mr Nick Pope has been more on the right track and symbol on the Socorro Craft taken down by the US Police Officer and the large explosion made prior to the eyewitness account of a credible Police Officer. The Scientific paper 'Unclassified ' on the 'Traveling Ionospheric Disturbance (T.I.D) 'and the eyewitness accounts of military officers and lower ranks. Also Politicians who held higher office (yes) and the meetings held in a classified bunker .
Quote "
The panel met three times/ the last meeting was April 2-3, 1980. 8."
During the suggested 'Blue Beam' agenda events of 'Bentwaters Case' did have a number of contacts on radar which are still classified T.P.S and contacts were made by Subs and other stations which these were documented . Yes time the humanity was told the truth and those who seek to muddy the 'Bentwater Case' for some unknown reason? Furthermore, Cobra Meeting (yes) were held during this time due to the contacts of unknown objects and the scientific paper by Holt on 'Radar Sounding Evidence for Buried Glaciers in Southern Mid-Latitudes of Mars' (21, November , 2008). As the tracking of the object were seen coming from this region and remembering the 'Space Net' and ongoing activities from number of locations in space. Also inside Professor James .E. McDonald transcript/paper during his presentation at the American Association For The Advancement Of Science , 134 th Meeting : Science in Default : 22nd Years of Inadequate' UFO Investigation ' the meetings discussed over 200 events , Quote
"But what is of greatest present interest is the point that here we have a well-reported multi-channel , multiple -witness UFO report, coming in fact from within the Air Force itself.10."
The U.A.P research needs to get back on track and bin the 'Blue Beam' rubbish which has been feed by disinformation operators. U.A.P events occurred on multiple bases across number of NATO during 1980 and multiple contact on radar with not Soviet nor Communist Chinese aircraft rather unknown U.A.Ps. Then another wave occurred in 2012-2014 and next one is now occurring.
Quote "
The panel met three times/ the last meeting was April 2-3, 1980. 8."
During the suggested 'Blue Beam' agenda events of 'Bentwaters Case' did have a number of contacts on radar which are still classified T.P.S and contacts were made by Subs and other stations which these were documented . Yes time the humanity was told the truth and those who seek to muddy the 'Bentwater Case' for some unknown reason? Furthermore, Cobra Meeting (yes) were held during this time due to the contacts of unknown objects and the scientific paper by Holt on 'Radar Sounding Evidence for Buried Glaciers in Southern Mid-Latitudes of Mars' (21, November , 2008). As the tracking of the object were seen coming from this region and remembering the 'Space Net' and ongoing activities from number of locations in space. Also inside Professor James .E. McDonald transcript/paper during his presentation at the American Association For The Advancement Of Science , 134 th Meeting : Science in Default : 22nd Years of Inadequate' UFO Investigation ' the meetings discussed over 200 events , Quote
"But what is of greatest present interest is the point that here we have a well-reported multi-channel , multiple -witness UFO report, coming in fact from within the Air Force itself.10."
The U.A.P research needs to get back on track and bin the 'Blue Beam' rubbish which has been feed by disinformation operators. U.A.P events occurred on multiple bases across number of NATO during 1980 and multiple contact on radar with not Soviet nor Communist Chinese aircraft rather unknown U.A.Ps. Then another wave occurred in 2012-2014 and next one is now occurring.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Nothing new here on the Socorro landing case. On a recent episode we touched on Quintanilla's theory that it was some sort of prototype based on the Apollo LEM. I tend to share that sentiment, but there's insufficient evidence to draw a definitive conclusion. That being said, because a combination of circumstances and our technology at the time could conceivably explain it, I hesitate to jump to OMG aliens ?
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Meaningful Questions
Most of us at some point or another have been asked, "How are you?" and we simply respond with something like, "I'm okay. How about you?" But if we want to answer that question with more than a superficial response, it's not as easy as we might imagine. This is because no matter what answer we give, another "how type" question can always be asked about that until we are left wondering what the question was really about in the first place.
For example, we might assume that how we win a race only requires that we run faster than our opponent. Superficially this is true. However Achilles paradox reveals that if we give a turtle a head start, logically it should always win. Worse yet, it reveals that movement should be impossible and therefore must be some kind of illusion. Yet movement happens anyway, and running faster explains nothing about how to actually do that.
The mind-body problem and the hard problem of consciousness are philosophical examples of "Explain How" and "Explain Why" type questions that lead us down a similar rabbit hole. They may seem profound, but are only useful to the extent that they get us thinking about the situation with minds and bodies. A more useful activity than dwelling on how or why type questions would be to describe as best we can the situations they pertain to.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons that observation is of primary importance in the scientific method. Without observation we cannot describe what it is we're attempting to understand. We might be tempted to say that not everything that is scientific can be observed, but we need to remember that observation is essentially a convenience term for detection. It doesn't literally mean you have to see it with your eyes.
The problem with consciousness is that although we experience it subjectively, we have yet to find a way to objectively detect it. Presently we're left to assume that consciousness is something other people, and probably many animals experience. But we cannot be certain, and this uncertainty has left many a philosopher stuck in a cycle of how and why questions, rather than advancing research toward a consciousness detector.
The main players in the search for a consciousness detector are neuroscientists, and one thing that they and the rest of us who experience consciousness can be reasonably certain of, is that our brain is a consciousness detector. It is the only tool in the known universe that we know of that is able to detect consciousness.
Therefore it's no wonder that those interested in the science of consciousness who are focusing on the brain. The only problem with the brain based approach is being able to establish independent verification. For example a patient may claim that they are experiencing consciousness, but doctors have no independently objective way to confirm that.
In this effort, it makes no difference whether or not the brain is the cause of consciousness. Once we can describe in detail the situation with brains that detects consciousness, we'll be halfway to determining if it is also causal.
It may be the case that the brain isn't causal, but happens to always correlate with consciousness. At first this may seem all too convenient a rule for the universe to impart. However it may not be the case that it is a rule so much as the result of a particular kind of situation that happens when brains and consciousness are in the same space. Consider the following analogy between a brain and a water condenser:
A water condenser doesn't cause or create water. It doesn't in and of itself even change much while it is working. But the result is that water comes out of it. Now let's suppose we had never encountered water before and don't know about water vapor. Liquid water emerging from a water condenser might seem to be like some mysterious ectoplasm, with the condenser as the cause.
I'm not saying here that consciousness exists in some ethereal state that brains are able to condense into awareness, but it might be something analogous to that. In other words, maybe brains aren't causing consciousness. Maybe they're filtering consciousness out of the environment, and only those environments where this filtering can happen are where such brains can natually evolve.
I have not seen this concept proposed anyplace else. If you ( the reader ) run across an identical approach by someone else published prior to this article, please let me know. In the meantime, for convenience sake I'll refer to it as the Neuro-Filtering Hypothesis ( NFH ). It is not a classical materialist approach. It is not a panpsychist approach. Nor is it a phenomenological approach. It doesn't seem to fit any existing model.
The NFH is what I would call a neo-physicalist approach. It is an example that avoids "How" or "Why" type questions. Instead, it provides a framework for describing a possible situation that may help us identify meaningful relationships between consciousness and the rest of the environment. In my opinion, as an armchair philosopher, this might offer passage to the next level in the game.
Until then, don't think too hard about the response you are going to give next time someone asks, "How are you?" or you may find yourself tempted to step through a looking glass, enter a wardrobe, or crawl down a rabbit hole. If you don't want to use a mundane reply, here are three alternatives you might want to try, compliments of Lewis Carroll:
1. We're all mad here.
2. Curiouser and curiouser!
3. Ah, that's the great puzzle!
Most of us at some point or another have been asked, "How are you?" and we simply respond with something like, "I'm okay. How about you?" But if we want to answer that question with more than a superficial response, it's not as easy as we might imagine. This is because no matter what answer we give, another "how type" question can always be asked about that until we are left wondering what the question was really about in the first place.
For example, we might assume that how we win a race only requires that we run faster than our opponent. Superficially this is true. However Achilles paradox reveals that if we give a turtle a head start, logically it should always win. Worse yet, it reveals that movement should be impossible and therefore must be some kind of illusion. Yet movement happens anyway, and running faster explains nothing about how to actually do that.
The mind-body problem and the hard problem of consciousness are philosophical examples of "Explain How" and "Explain Why" type questions that lead us down a similar rabbit hole. They may seem profound, but are only useful to the extent that they get us thinking about the situation with minds and bodies. A more useful activity than dwelling on how or why type questions would be to describe as best we can the situations they pertain to.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons that observation is of primary importance in the scientific method. Without observation we cannot describe what it is we're attempting to understand. We might be tempted to say that not everything that is scientific can be observed, but we need to remember that observation is essentially a convenience term for detection. It doesn't literally mean you have to see it with your eyes.
The problem with consciousness is that although we experience it subjectively, we have yet to find a way to objectively detect it. Presently we're left to assume that consciousness is something other people, and probably many animals experience. But we cannot be certain, and this uncertainty has left many a philosopher stuck in a cycle of how and why questions, rather than advancing research toward a consciousness detector.
The main players in the search for a consciousness detector are neuroscientists, and one thing that they and the rest of us who experience consciousness can be reasonably certain of, is that our brain is a consciousness detector. It is the only tool in the known universe that we know of that is able to detect consciousness.
Therefore it's no wonder that those interested in the science of consciousness who are focusing on the brain. The only problem with the brain based approach is being able to establish independent verification. For example a patient may claim that they are experiencing consciousness, but doctors have no independently objective way to confirm that.
In this effort, it makes no difference whether or not the brain is the cause of consciousness. Once we can describe in detail the situation with brains that detects consciousness, we'll be halfway to determining if it is also causal.
It may be the case that the brain isn't causal, but happens to always correlate with consciousness. At first this may seem all too convenient a rule for the universe to impart. However it may not be the case that it is a rule so much as the result of a particular kind of situation that happens when brains and consciousness are in the same space. Consider the following analogy between a brain and a water condenser:
A water condenser doesn't cause or create water. It doesn't in and of itself even change much while it is working. But the result is that water comes out of it. Now let's suppose we had never encountered water before and don't know about water vapor. Liquid water emerging from a water condenser might seem to be like some mysterious ectoplasm, with the condenser as the cause.
I'm not saying here that consciousness exists in some ethereal state that brains are able to condense into awareness, but it might be something analogous to that. In other words, maybe brains aren't causing consciousness. Maybe they're filtering consciousness out of the environment, and only those environments where this filtering can happen are where such brains can natually evolve.
I have not seen this concept proposed anyplace else. If you ( the reader ) run across an identical approach by someone else published prior to this article, please let me know. In the meantime, for convenience sake I'll refer to it as the Neuro-Filtering Hypothesis ( NFH ). It is not a classical materialist approach. It is not a panpsychist approach. Nor is it a phenomenological approach. It doesn't seem to fit any existing model.
The NFH is what I would call a neo-physicalist approach. It is an example that avoids "How" or "Why" type questions. Instead, it provides a framework for describing a possible situation that may help us identify meaningful relationships between consciousness and the rest of the environment. In my opinion, as an armchair philosopher, this might offer passage to the next level in the game.
Until then, don't think too hard about the response you are going to give next time someone asks, "How are you?" or you may find yourself tempted to step through a looking glass, enter a wardrobe, or crawl down a rabbit hole. If you don't want to use a mundane reply, here are three alternatives you might want to try, compliments of Lewis Carroll:
1. We're all mad here.
2. Curiouser and curiouser!
3. Ah, that's the great puzzle!
Last edited: