They don't want us to know

[trainedobserver]

I’m talking to the right guy, and that guy stated that he was a materialist. So one of two things have occurred. Either he did not know what a materialist was, or he has had a change of heart. I don’t know which one, and I really don’t care. Let’s move forward.

I haven't had a change of heart. Maybe I'm not such a textbook materialist. You've just read my best attempt at explaining my current understanding. What label do you want to pin on me?

 

[Randall]

You said "So let's revise: By what measure do you believe we can be reasonably certain of the objective reality of anything?" I answered. Repeatability.

The inexperiencable real world is navigated using the 3D Virtual Display map (literally our experience of consciousness), the only useful bits of which are the reliable repeatable portions. Sensory anomalies like hallucinations, apparitions, and the sort are practically useless in navigating the landscape and so forth.

But how could you tell?

To be clear, have we now abandoned your reasoning given in item 4 here and moved on to the issue of repeatability alone without any dependence on anything said or implied in item 4 ?

 

[trainedobserver]

To be clear, have we now abandoned your reasoning given in item 4 here and moved on to the issue of repeatability alone without any dependence on anything said or implied in item 4 ?

I have explained my thinking as best I know how. You may falsify the hypothesis at anytime by providing a tale of the reality that exists beyond that created by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system (that is to say the experience of human consciousness, the 3D virtual reality presentation, the mind) that is not logically and practically false by virtue of the inexperienceable nature of the real world or for any other reason for that matter. All we need is a true account of something happening outside of the human experience of consciousness. Something, someone, some event occurring in the real world that we normally or casually are unaware of that is communicated by some mysterious means from the absolute reality that meets some standard of evidence. For example, seeing the ghost of Aunt Mable once in my living room isn't proof of the afterlife, ghosts, or my need of medication.

But more pointedly, point 4 is saying that absolute reality is so different from experienced reality that the human perspective doesn't apply, therefore claims of real knowledge of it are logically and practically impossible.

I love this discussion and I appreciate your perspective and comments. I understand the objection to saying that the inexplicable nature of absolute reality being the cause for any tales originating outside of human experience being false, but I'm unable to phrase it differently at the moment. Well, maybe I just did in the preceding paragraph.

 

[Randall]

I have explained my thinking as best I know how ...

Well it seems we're at a standstill. I can't seem to get across the point that I understand exactly what you are saying and that it logically fails as a reason for claiming the falseness of one thing while presuming the truth of another. However I suppose we can still move on using your example, "seeing the ghost of Aunt Mable once in my living room isn't proof of the afterlife". I completely agree. Even if we could repeat the experience and show it to others, it still wouldn't be proof of an afterlife. Quite frankly, I'm not sure that the existence of an afterlife can be proven, even by experiencing it for one's self, unless the conditions were perfect. Of course that doesn't mean an afterlife isn't possible ( depending on how one defines it ).

 

[trainedobserver]

Well it seems we're at a standstill. I can't seem to get across the point that I understand exactly what you are saying and that it logically fails as a reason for claiming the falseness of one thing while presuming the truth of another. However I suppose we can still move on using your example, "seeing the ghost of Aunt Mable once in my living room isn't proof of the afterlife". I completely agree. Even if we could repeat the experience and show it to others, it still wouldn't be proof of an afterlife. Quite frankly, I'm not sure that the existence of an afterlife can be proven, even by experiencing it for one's self, unless the conditions were perfect. Of course that doesn't mean an afterlife isn't possible ( depending on how one defines it ).

What am I trying to say in point 4? Let me if I can express in another way doesn't fail, if I can.

If the real world cannot be directly experienced. (The television studio)
And all we can experience is our conscious mind. (The television set)
Then knowledge of the real world is impossible. (The set, the script, the camera man.)
Knowledge is limited to the conscious mind and its presentation. (The image presented on the television set; science is studying the image on the television set and making conclusions about the studio, however, this only works in the context of what is on the screen, and produces no real knowledge of the workings of the studio.)
Therefore individuals who claim to have acquired direct knowledge about the real world are mistaken. (They claim to be able to watch the television set and know what is behind the camera.)

Some are going to say they have special senses, cosmic awareness, or some such, I humbly submit they are still looking at the television set.

 

[Randall]

What am I trying to say in point 4? Let me if I can express in another way doesn't fail, if I can.

If the real world cannot be directly experienced. (The television studio)
And all we can experience is our conscious mind. (The television set)
Then knowledge of the real world is impossible. (The set, the script, the camera man.)
Knowledge is limited to the conscious mind and its presentation. (The image presented on the television set; science is studying the image on the television set and making conclusions about the studio, however, this only works in the context of what is on the screen, and produces no real knowledge of the workings of the studio.)
Therefore individuals who claim to have acquired direct knowledge about the real world are mistaken. (They claim to be able to watch the television set and know what is behind the camera.)

Some are going to say they have special senses, cosmic awareness, or some such, I humbly submit they are still looking at the television set.

I got all that the first time around. Repeating it again and again doesn't explain how it makes one kind of information false and another kind true. Using your analogy: Because we're looking at everything outside ourselves through a television set, and using that as a reason to call information gained from that process false, all information gained from that process must be false, and not simply the information you choose to reject. Therefore, using this rationale, scientific observations are no more valid that any other observation. Furthermore we find that information can be gained without using that process at all.

 

[trainedobserver]

...Because we're looking at everything outside ourselves through a television set, and using that as a reason to call information gained from that process false, all information gained from that process must be false, and not simply the information you choose to reject.

It isn't that the information about the real world displayed by the mind is false it is that it is simply that one is not the other. We essentially become (in the form of our consciousness) this 3 dimensional individualized subjective reality we experience (sub-atomically (?) somewhere inside or skulls.) that is not the multi-dimensional real world. Now, that does not make our 3D version false, that just makes it something else.

I agree that simply because the real world cannot be directly experienced does not mean that all tales told about it must therefore be false. However, I cannot imagine how stories told about something that cannot be experienced could be accurate or how we could tell if they were, but maybe you can explain that conundrum to me.

Therefore, using this rationale, scientific observations are no more valid that any other observation. Furthermore we find that information can be gained without using that process at all.

The only real criteria for the validity of any observation is how useful it is in determining the state of something. The only measure of information is how useful it is in determining a course of action. I have to ask myself, "What has proven to be most productive methodology for determining the validity of observations and the usefulness of information in the fields of medicine, manufacturing, and food production?"

 

[Randall]

It isn't that the information about the real world displayed by the mind is false it is that it is simply that one is not the other. We essentially become (in the form of our consciousness) this 3 dimensional individualized subjective reality we experience (sub-atomically (?) somewhere inside or skulls.) that is not the multi-dimensional real world. Now, that does not make our 3D version false, that just makes it something else.

The only real criteria for the validity of any observation is how useful it is in determining the state of something. The only measure of information is how useful it is in determining a course of action. I have to ask myself, "What has proven to be most productive methodology for determining the validity of observations and the usefulness of information in the fields of medicine, manufacturing, and food production?"


At long last ... we've made a breakthrough ( I think ), let's begin with:

I cannot imagine how stories told about something that cannot be experienced could be accurate or how we could tell if they were, but maybe you can explain that conundrum to me.

1. A story, be it scientific or otherwise, doesn't have to be experienenced to be accurate. The issue is as you point out, how to tell.
2. Given that our awareness of external reality is entirely abstract, it is impossible to tell with certainty that our information about the external world is accurate.
3. Given the above anything we conclude about our external reality is based on the assumption that what we experience is real.

How are we doing?

 

[trainedobserver]

A story, be it scientific or otherwise, doesn't have to be experienenced to be accurate. The issue is as you point out, how to tell.

How would it be known to exist if it is not experienced? Something cannot be known unless someone experiences it, whether that is a tale told by a fool (that is the experience of the telling) or the results of a scientific investigation.

Given that our awareness of external reality is entirely abstract, it is impossible to tell with certainty that our information about the external world is accurate.

It can be determined if it is useful however.

Given the above anything we conclude about our external reality is based on the assumption that what we experience is real.

That is the default casual interpretation of the organism or naive realism. You and I know better of course.

How are we doing?

Cut to the chase.

 

[Randall]

Cut to the chase.

1. Contrary to Item 4. Because we can't know the ultimate reality of anything beyond our subjective experience, we cannot claim with any certainty that something or another beyond it is false.
2. Contrary to Item 4. We can also acquire new additional information using internal processing rather than sensory input.
3. Contrary to Item 4. It is also conceivable that whatever is responsible for existence itself can simply impart information directly, bypassing normal sensory input.

 

[trainedobserver]

Contrary to Item 4. Because we can't know the ultimate reality of anything beyond our subjective experience, we cannot claim with any certainty that something or another beyond it is false.

A nonsensical statement.

Contrary to Item 4. We can also acquire new additional information using internal processing rather than sensory input.

Define "Internal processing."

Contrary to Item 4. It is also conceivable that whatever is responsible for existence itself can simply impart information directly, bypassing normal sensory input.

There is no reason to think that. We may imagine that anything is possible, but in reality only a few things are probable by comparison.

 

[Randall]

A nonsensical statement.
Define "Internal processing."
There is no reason to think that.
We may imagine that anything is possible, but in reality only a few things are probable by comparison.

1. Explain rather than proclaim.
2. By internal processing I mean pure thought ( beyond sensory experience ).
3. Sure there are reasons. We just don't know if they are correct.
4. Improbable and false are two entirely separate concepts. Your original statement was "false" not "improbable".

Given the above you should consider revising your original statement. e.g.

​

Information acquired from sources beyond the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system, or from the brain/mind system alone, are probably false by virtue of ( give us an explanation why it's improbable ).​

 

[exo_doc]

Hey guys I can't resist jumping in here.

According to a lot of esoteric and philiosophical literature, as well as some borderline scientific works, here is what I propose.

Our consciousness is a non-local phenomena, the higher self residing "elsewhere".
The bodies we think of as "ourselves" are in fact just like virtual reality Waldoes we use to explore this existence.
The brain is the data port to this higher self, it having the ability to interact with spiritual/psychical/mental (fill in the blank).
Therefore when the brain is damaged, our connection to the higher self is disrupted to the degree of damage.

Before you start poo-pooing on this, let me ask you the question that gave me pause a while back.......

When you sense yourself, when you feel who you are and sense your consciousness.....where is the center of it?
It's back behind your eyes isn't it? Right in the center of your brain.
Why can you not feel your consciousness or sense of self elsewhere in your body? It's not just because the brain is the center of your physical senses, even psychologists have been asking that.
Could it be the brain is the center of yourself because of the higher self connection?

 

[Randall]

Hey guys I can't resist jumping in here.

According to a lot of esoteric and philiosophical literature, as well as some borderline scientific works, here is what I propose.

Our consciousness is a non-local phenomena, the higher self residing "elsewhere".
The bodies we think of as "ourselves" are in fact just like virtual reality Waldoes we use to explore this existence.
The brain is the data port to this higher self, it having the ability to interact with spiritual/psychical/mental (fill in the blank).
Therefore when the brain is damaged, our connection to the higher self is disrupted to the degree of damage.

Before you start poo-pooing on this, let me ask you the question that gave me pause a while back.......

When you sense yourself, when you feel who you are and sense your consciousness.....where is the center of it?
It's back behind your eyes isn't it? Right in the center of your brain.
Why can you not feel your consciousness or sense of self elsewhere in your body? It's not just because the brain is the center of your physical senses, even psychologists have been asking that.
Could it be the brain is the center of yourself because of the higher self connection?

"Resistance is futile" ... Welcome Exo!

What I'm amazed at is how completely civil this discussion has remained despite the frustrations involved in reaching a common understanding of the problem, let alone finding a solution. It's one more reason for people interested in these types of discussions to join the Paracast instead of some other places ( that shall remain unnamed ). Your proposal is interesting and deserves some investigation. If our consciousness is non-local as you suggest, it means that we are unaware of our actual location ( which is our real "local" location ) and our awareness is exclusive to a remote location ( which we'll call remote ). In other words our local awareness is supressed and we are only aware of a remote location as relayed to us via the brain ( I presume ) at the remote location. To avoid getting in too deep right away like I did with Train, are we on the same page so far?

 

[trainedobserver]

Contrary to Item 4. Because we can't know the ultimate reality of anything beyond our subjective experience, we cannot claim with any certainty that something or another beyond it is false.

This makes no sense. If something can't be experienced it can't be judged one way or another. I won't go into how concepts like true and false, right and wrong, black and white, and all that, belong solely in the realm of human experience anyway.

By internal processing I mean pure thought ( beyond sensory experience ).

Give an example of what you are talking about? What is pure thought?

Sure there are reasons. We just don't know if they are correct.

Then what use are they?

Improbable and false are two entirely separate concepts. Your original statement was "false" not "improbable".

Good grief. However you want it man, however you want it.

 

[trainedobserver]

Right in the center of your brain.
Why can you not feel your consciousness or sense of self elsewhere in your body? It's not just because the brain is the center of your physical senses, even psychologists have been asking that.
Could it be the brain is the center of yourself because of the higher self connection?

I think it is because that is best place to have it. Aside from that I think it's a result of consciousness emerging from brain activity with a lot to do with orientation of the eyes and ears on the head.

Interestingly enough, the 3D Virtual reality simulation is occurring in another dimension (not "out there" but "in here") and another time (delayed by transmission and processing time) than the actual events they portray. Not only are we disconnected by substance (this is not that) but by location and time as well. The remarkable thing is that nature has evolved the human organism to operate in this manner and it works for us and allows us to navigate the landscape, locate food, etc., etc.

 

[mike]

I'll just leave this here.......
Brain oscillations reveal that our senses do not experience the world continuously

For perception, this means that despite experiencing the world as a continuum, we do not sample our world continuously but in discrete snapshots determined by the cycles of brain rhythms.”

Hope it helps everyone

 

[Randall]

This makes no sense. If something can't be experienced it can't be judged one way or another. I won't go into how concepts like true and false, right and wrong, black and white, and all that, belong solely in the realm of human experience anyway.

The thing is that you did go into the concept of true and false when you declared the "tales" false, even though you admit above that it can't be judged one way or the other.

Give an example of what you are talking about? What is pure thought?

Assuming that we accept that we have obtained knowledge from our senses where we've measured the length of two lines joined at a right angle. Without any further sensory input we can extrapolate with accuracy using intelligence and logic alone ( pure thought ) the:

• The total length of the of the two sides.
• The distance in a straight line between the two non-joined ends of each side.
• The area that such a shape would cover.

Then what use are they?

Usefulness isn't the point you were originally making, it was the falseness of "tales" based on the limitations of sensory perception you were claiming.

Good grief. However you want it man, however you want it.

The discussion isn't about how I want it, it's about the accuracy of the information we've been discussing. Although it has been a challenge to land us both on some common ground where we can both proceed in confidence, that has only made the conversation more interesting. How can two seemingly intelligent people capable of understanding abstract concepts fail to see where the disconnect is between their two viewpoints? Maybe we need a third party to help decipher? Exo perhaps?

 

[exo_doc]

"Resistance is futile" ... Welcome Exo!

What I'm amazed at is how completely civil this discussion has remained despite the frustrations involved in reaching a common understanding of the problem, let alone finding a solution. It's one more reason for people interested in these types of discussions to join the Paracast instead of some other places ( that shall remain unnamed ). Your proposal is interesting and deserves some investigation. If our consciousness is non-local as you suggest, it means that we are unaware of our actual location ( which is our real "local" location ) and our awareness is exclusive to a remote location ( which we'll call remote ). In other words our local awareness is supressed and we are only aware of a remote location as relayed to us via the brain ( I presume ) at the remote location. To avoid getting in too deep right away like I did with Train, are we on the same page so far?

Yes, same page. To me, if our consciousness is a non-local phenom, it would answer a lot of questions about seemingly paranormal events. Can't write much now, the blood thirsty masters & overlords want me to "work"...Piffle....imagine that?

 

[trainedobserver]

The thing is that you did go into the concept of true and false when you declared the "tales" false, even though you admit above that it can't be judged one way or the other.

This is getting a little unwieldy and time consuming. I will not play the backtrack the conversation game beyond this post.

You are incorrect. What was I talking about in Point 4?
"Tales of the reality that exists beyond that created by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system are logically and practically false by virtue of the inexperienceable nature of the real world in which we actually move and have our being."

What is a tale? A tale is story told by a human being. In what domain do "tales" belong? The realm of human experience where judgments are made and values assigned.

What was I talking about in post 396? Your comment about "the ultimate reality of anything beyond subjective experience" or as I have been referring to it as, the real world.

ufology said: ↑

"Contrary to Item 4. Because we can't know the ultimate reality of anything beyond our subjective experience, we cannot claim with any certainty that something or another beyond it is false."​

I replied with: "This makes no sense. If something can't be experienced it can't be judged one way or another. I won't go into how concepts like true and false, right and wrong, black and white, and all that, belong solely in the realm of human experience anyway."

In what domain does "the ultimate reality of anything beyond subjective experience" belong? The realm outside of human experience that we're talking about. Outside of human value assignments.

Assuming that we accept that we have obtained knowledge from our senses where we've measured the length of two lines joined at a right angle. Without any further sensory input we can extrapolate with accuracy using intelligence and logic alone ( pure thought ) the:

• The total length of the of the two sides.
• The distance in a straight line between the two non-joined ends of each side.
• The area that such a shape would cover.

Usefulness isn't the point you were originally making, it was the falseness of "tales" based on the limitations of sensory perception you were claiming.

Just where do you think this intelligence and logic are taking place? Within the individual human's consciousness, the sum total of all of that human's experience. Does your imaginary line exist anywhere other than in that individual mind? No, it does not.

How can two seemingly intelligent people capable of understanding abstract concepts fail to see where the disconnect is between their two viewpoints?

I see the disconnect. You apparently want to argue that you can know something about the region outside what humans have the ability to experience by thinking about it. You are mixing the domains.