• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

TEDxBrussels-Jacques Vallee, A Theory of Everything (else) 11-2011

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

I like Vallee's portrayal of space-time as a kind of "reading room" in a cosmic library of information. Traditional physics by means of reductionism--that is, the breaking of things into ever smaller parts to see of what things are made--is close to the limit with the LHC at Cern. What follows may be new science based on the phenomenon of self-organizing systems and information theory.
 
Religion itself has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Besides, I do not see how you can make a distinction between religious experiences and paranormal ones. The only difference I see is how people think about them.

Nevertheless, I have had precognitive experiences as well. I personally cannot draw any concrete conclusions about the mechanism or meaning of those events. They occurred. Other people experience them, but not everyone sees them as containing enough information to formulate a belief system around or a belief about at all. I certainly do not have any insight into the invisible, inexperiencable machinery behind it. I suspect that they are anomalous glimpses into processes running in another shell (using the analogy of a UNIX shell) of our unconscious minds.

I think it can be taken as a scientific fact that all matter (what we understand as matter) within the universe is interconnected. We understand some of these connections and it stands to reason there are many that we do not. So I am not saying that remote viewing cannot happen. I am saying that there is no reason that I can see, to think that Uri Gellar has ever possessed any power other than that of persuasion.

Does Haisch ever define what he means by the word God?
Perhaps here on page 2 of The God Theory.
"To you, I propose a God whose purposeful ideas somehow became the laws of nature underlying our universe. ...The difference between my proposed world view and the prevailing reductionism of modern science is tha its theories rest squarely on enigmatically per-exisiting and randomly distribued "laws of nature" mindlessly giving rise to universes that are utterly devoid of purpose. Mine rests on a n acceptance of an infinite intelligence as the source of our universe and all the other universes that modern astrophysical inflation theory postulates."

It could be that he presents something more definite elsewhere. Here I get the distinct impression of a statement of faith. God apparently is something with the fantastical quality of infinite intelligence. I have to ask, what is infinite intelligence and how on earth could such a notion of infinity be applied to the concept of intelligence in the first place? But I'm not a Phd so perhaps my lack of education is not serving me so well.

When I read things like Haisch's statement, two questions immediately spring to my mind:
1) If the universe requires an intelligent creator, doesn't the intelligent creator require an intelligent creator even more so? The argument that order does not rise from chaos without intelligent direction begs for an explanation for the origin of the mechanism for that intelligent direction. In other words, there is an inherit need for a God origin story. God? What is that and where did it come from?
2) Where is this information coming from?

The intelligent design of the universe and everything in it could conceivably be the work of a machine created by another machine created by a committee of physical beings who spend most of their time arguing over what to have for lunch. How could you tell? All theories about objects and events outside of our resource boundary (our space-time subset) are logically equally invalid. To choose one over another is an act of faith (the acceptance of something without evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence) that disregards the ambiguity of the situation entirely.
 
boomerang said:
I like Vallee's portrayal of space-time as a kind of "reading room" in a cosmic library of information. Traditional physics by means of reductionism--that is, the breaking of things into ever smaller parts to see of what things are made--is close to the limit with the LHC at Cern. What follows may be new science based on the phenomenon of self-organizing systems and information theory.
Click to expand...

I like the theory that the purpose of life forms that possesses a form of consciousness is to function as the information processing or consciousness organs for the organism we think of as the universe. There could be some larger and very different type of consciousness that emerges from these smaller parts, we as cogs in that larger wheel are incapable of perceiving. I can't see going much beyond that in any attempt to attribute any characteristics to it though, if such a thing does in fact exist.
 
I'm not trying to be argumenitive or rude. It's obvious to me that you (as have I) have given a great deal of thought to these issues. I do however think that "who created god" is a very simplistic question and not really of much worth. It is trying to explain "I Am" which is being, by simple space/time arguments. God (imo) would not be a "creature" or a being as such. On the other hand "I" am not simply a creature. I'm not my hand and I'm not my foot and I am not my brain. "I" (imo) exist outside of these things as "being." I know this is convoluted but it's the best I can do. I know what I'm trying to say but, I am not doing a good job of putting it into words. The other thing is that I am not trying to 'define" God. For me, it's the way in which I have lived my life. I have an ongoing inner dialog and I am very comfortable with that. You can call it "higher self" which to me is a silly new age term. You can call it "random sparks of grey matter" which to me equally misses the point. It really doesn't matter to me at this point in my life. I'm not trying to create or join a new religion. I did my time and as I have said before I have the t-shirt. I have not made a religion out of my so called "paranormal" experiences. When I say 2+2=4 that is not a worldview. So, when I say I have experienced and actually "verified" with a skeptic friend the reality of "knowing" something before it happened, that is not a world view or a religious experience. That is 2+2=4. I make no claim that it "Proves" God or the after life or some silly twit like Slyvia Browne. I simply say that it proves that the researcher who said it couldn't happen was wrong. From there I'm free to experiment and pray and meditate and talk and ponder without fear of being a stone cold idiot or anti intelletual hick. Other than that, I have no answer for the ongoing reality of life and death and rebirth. It appears to be (imo) quite natural. The rest of you are of course free to talk among yourselves. :p Smoke em if you got em.


I'm not a religious man...but, if you're up there Superman, help me....Homer Simpson.
 
tyder001 said:
I do however think that "who created god" is a very simplistic question and not really of much worth.
Click to expand...

Dealing with simplistic notions like creator gods whipped up by someone's imagination requires the question Steve. It is the logical question to ask if you allow yourself to think beyond the unqualified acceptance of an omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent thing existing in the first place. Where did that thing come from is a extremely valid question and I would think an all important question for the believer in such a thing.

If it is a simplistic question to ask where a claimant for the creator of the universe originated from then I put to you it is equally dismissive of the complexity of the situation to state that the universe requires a maker to account for it.

Isn't it just as reasonable to assume that the universe is just the way it is and always has been than to assume some form of intelligent life created it? In my opinion the belief in an absolute first cause that is intelligent and creating everything else requires many more assumptions to be made than a universe that simply is and always has been as we see it now, an endless cycle of transformation from one state to another.

I still have no idea what you hold in your mind when you use the word "God" Steve or what information about the nature of the universe you believe your experience gives you. We might as well be talking about framastats and widgets. I appreciate the conversation though.
 
If it is a simplistic question to ask where a claimant for the creator of the universe originated from then I put to you it is equally dismissive of the complexity of the situation to state that the universe requires a maker to account for it.

I also, appreciate the conversation. I don't personally "believe" that a man in the sky fashioned the universe. Nor, do I think it "has" to have someone who did. It's just as likely to be (and I think more likely since here it is) intentional as unintentional. I give meaning to my life by observing, by being. Now I'm not a PHD myself but it seems to me to be kind of like the observer at the quantom level. But, all I know is I am and I have intention. Therefore "to me" exsistence has intention. Still, that is going farther down the rabbit hole and I go back to my own observation. As to what I hold in my mind when I say God? Well, you may as well ask me what I hold in my mind when I say "me." Not, being flip here but if you were to say to me. "Steve, what are you?" I would say "Me." You might then say but where are you? How are you, you? I can point to a being in the mirror and say "there I am." But, then you might say where? In the head? Well, no not really. "In the hand?" Well, no not really. "In the brain?" Well, no not really. There are very good researchers who find that the "brain" setting in one place inside my head doesn't account for everything I expereince. It seems to be a conductor or a reciever as much as a "starter." So, when I can tell you what I am, then I can honestly tell you what God is. "I" have memories of being in another place and time. I have known things and expereinced things outside of space and time. But, were they products of a misfiring mass of grey matter? Maybe, but I don't think so. I have always questioned things. That's one reason I'm not in a church today. that's one reason I'm not a materilist today. That's one reason I don't join organizations and label myself or call myself liberal or conservative. I am the observer. What I am "now" has much to do with the place and time and body I was born with. That "me" will be (imo) found to be simply a "role" or an experince and not the definitive "I am" which is what I find in deep prayer and meditation (neither of which I've been able to really enter into lately.) I can't go back to my "church" and be a good fundi Christian. I can't go back to my 25 year old self and flirt with atheism. I can only go forward and from here I'm still learning. Anyway, words fail me (hard to believe) :p at times like this. I will continue to call my inner dialog with God/Holy Spirit/Being/Jesus Christ/center of existence or whatever other "words" I have to use if somebody ask me. But, I don't beat folks over the head with a bible. I don't cut off head for Allah's sake and I don't pretend that I am absolutely sure of any "single" worldview. I also am very moved by some things in the bible and very W.T.F. with others. :confused: It's kind of like my story about the Hindu Mystic I referenced in an earlier post. I'm not a Hindu and never will be. But, "some" of that worldview makes perfect sense to me. So, does some atheistic and agnostic and Buddist worldview. But, at the end of the day. I have to follow my inner dialog and life expereince. I can't really give you any other reason for what I hold in my mind. I am in the mental health field on a very simple level. But, I do know enough to know that chemicals and brain function and life expereince and intent and trauma and all those things have much to do with how we manifest our being on in this life. So, does prayer and meditation and lifestyle and health. I see meaning to life and death and I see hope and rebirth. Works for me but I don't try to impose it on anybody else. So, we can continue to agree to disagree. Gosh, I look back and I'm embaressed to have written such a long winded post. :eek:
 
tyder001 said:
It's just as likely to be (and I think more likely since here it is) intentional as unintentional.
Click to expand...

Intent, purpose, and the state of being or non-being are not necessarily related are they? It would seem that any real purpose that we as a species or as an individual might fulfill in the universe must logically belong to the next higher layer of complexity above us within the system of the universe.

However, as you point out I think, we can only draw meaning and purpose from what we are directly conscious of, creating our own purpose and meaning as we go. I think, and I could be wrong, that everything in the universe fulfills its intented purpose regardless of the component parts' conscious participation or not. We fulfill our purposes by being, all the rest is just gravy so to speak.

tyder001 said:
I am the observer.
Click to expand...

I once thought this myself. Here of late I have come to see the silent observer that thinks it is me as just the tiny bit that is supposed to think that. The larger self for which the observer serves as a navigational tool is the thing we should identify with I think. This not only includes all of the actual real world physical human body and the information encoded its physical configuration but also the ecosystem in which it resides. The observer says, "Hey, I am the driver, the watcher, the real YOU!" but in all reality it is just the mirror being held up to your real face.


tyder001 said:
I will continue to call my inner dialog with God/Holy Spirit/Being/Jesus Christ/center of existence or whatever other "words" I have to use if somebody ask me.
Click to expand...

I used to be consumed with such. I caught myself talking to Jesus just the other day. I let whatever was going on in the inner man to go ahead and express itself and went on with my day, feeling neither hypocritical or pious. If anything actually heard the groaning of my spirit then lovely, but I no longer hold much hope in the gods of my imagination or the imagination of those who came before me to do anything about it. Yearning to commune with something greater than ourselves seems to be a universal human trait that goes beyond thought and reason and probably speaks more to our animal nature than anything spiritual. It's all in how you care to look at it I guess.
 
I once thought this myself. Here of late I have come to see the silent observer that thinks it is me as just the tiny bit that is supposed to think that. The larger self for which the observer serves as a navigational tool is the thing we should identify with I think. This not only includes all of the actual real world physical human body and the information encoded its physical configuration but also the ecosystem in which it resides. The observer says, "Hey, I am the driver, the watcher, the real YOU!" but in all reality it is just the mirror being held up to your real face.

Uhhh, ya lost me. ;) But, as to the rest of your post I do understand. don't entirely agree or entirely disagree. But, I do understand. :cool:
 
tyder001 said:
I once thought this myself. Here of late I have come to see the silent observer that thinks it is me as just the tiny bit that is supposed to think that. The larger self for which the observer serves as a navigational tool is the thing we should identify with I think. This not only includes all of the actual real world physical human body and the information encoded its physical configuration but also the ecosystem in which it resides. The observer says, "Hey, I am the driver, the watcher, the real YOU!" but in all reality it is just the mirror being held up to your real face.

Uhhh, ya lost me. ;) But, as to the rest of your post I do understand. don't entirely agree or entirely disagree. But, I do understand. :cool:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have to work on that. In short, that observer that seems to experience everything in your head isn't the ultimate you, its just a small part of a larger whole that serves the purpose of supplying a frame of reference so the organism can navigate the real world. Mystics and so forth refer to this point of observation as being the silent observer, the awareness, and so forth as though it were actually the seat of consciousness rather than just part of the presentation of consciousness itself. This can at once be both liberating and mortifying to contemplate. Your mileage may vary.
 
In Vallee's lecture, he mentions Dr. Phlilppe Guilemant who must be a fan of Carl Jung. Dr. Guilemant argues that the future is already realized and in transformation under our observations and intentions. He also states that synchronicities are caused by a double causality. In other words our intentions cause effects in the future that become the future causes of presents effects. Vallee's four requirements for a new physics are:

1. Recognize the universe we perceive as a subsystem of a meta-reality of information associations.

2. Recognize dimensions as a cultural artifact. Do away with them.

3. Treat the present as over-determined.

4. Consciousness traverses associations-thus generating the mind's impression of space and time.

If you are able to comprehend what Vallee is relating, you may be able to start connecting some of the dots in relation to extrasensory ability. Carl Jung's, Man and His Symbols will give the reader a clue as to the workings of the psyche and consciousness, relating to the reality in which we exist. You may be able to understand how he has arrived at the conclusion in which he has after reading and comprehending his work.


I've included this short trailer from “Authors of the Impossible” which some may find interesting, and may relate to #4.


Authors of the Impossible and Esalen | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History
 
S.R.L. said:
If you are able to comprehend what Vallee is relating, you may be able to start connecting some of the dots in relation to extrasensory ability.
Click to expand...

I think I have a rudimentary understanding of what he is getting at. I don't discount that, or the possibility of something we would describe as extrasensory ability. I just discount Uri Gellar and his claims of having supernatural powers of the mind or however you want to put it. There may be true ESPers out there, I just don't think Uri Gellar is or was ever one of them.
 
I cannot form an opinion on Mr. Gellar's abilities (or lack of), or anyone for that matter until I have useful information. A non answer is not necessarily an admission of guilt, even though it may be viewed in that manner. Perhaps rephrasing the question as, "at any time did you have the impression of possessing any extrasensory ability?"would have invoked a more favorable response.
 
S.R.L. said:
I cannot form an opinion on Mr. Gellar's abilities (or lack of), or anyone for that matter until I have useful information. A non answer is not necessarily an admission of guilt, even though it may be viewed in that manner. Perhaps rephrasing the question as, "at any time did you have the impression of possessing any extrasensory ability?"would have invoked a more favorable response.
Click to expand...

I would bet you Steve's next paycheck that you will not get a straight answer out of that guy no matter how you phrase the question.
 
"I would bet you Steve's next paycheck that you will not get a straight answer out of that guy no matter how you phrase the question."

Stranger things have happened.
 
Well, if your gonna do it my bank account number is BR-549 and my address is 1313 Shady Lane in Bumfuck Mississippi! My bankers name is I'ma Krook!
Double or nothin! :p
 
Back
Top