Where do you fit in as a believer or skeptic?

[trainedobserver]

Consciousness = frequency based energy

That definition is nonsensical given that:
Frequency is the period between two events and energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work. Both are concepts.

Field = a plane where we as relative points of reference are defined via sentience. Sentience provides experience via the metabolic results of the reception of consciousness in the brain.

Do you define sentience and consciousness as two separate things? What do you define as sentience?

 

[trainedobserver]

I would have to study Bruce, or Rupert's work to really understand more. I know that Sheldrake has REALLY been drawing fire lately due to the wiki crowd, but apart from finding their speculations sincerely interesting, I am not familiar enough to defend or dismiss either. Does Lipton profess a belief in religion based creationism?

I have tried to familiarize myself with both and I'm attempting here to explain exactly why what they are saying doesn't make sense to me.

 

[stonehart]

That definition is nonsensical given that:
Frequency is the period between two events and energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work. Both are concepts.



Do you define sentience and consciousness as two separate things? What do you define as sentience?

That made me instantly think of this:

The sound tech brain kicks in.

 

[Jeff Davis]

That definition is nonsensical given that:
Frequency is the period between two events and energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work. Both are concepts.


Do you define sentience and consciousness as two separate things? What do you define as sentience?

It's a bit too much to get into at this point, but I am assuredly working toward a comprehensive acceptable summation. It's a hypothetical conversion process wherein frequency specific energetic conversion takes place. Within this hypothetical process is a form of remote field reception wherein energetic frequency conversion is critical. Our reference within as much signifies and initiates sentience. Sentience is self recognition and awareness. It is the equal and opposite reaction to the reception of consciousness. The brain of course is far more complex, yet not unlike most other vital organs we have. It is integral, and is no different than the lungs without air, or a heart without blood. It must have consciousness to be actively functional.

I am aware that one could get all up in arms about religious angles here, but that is not the case at all. We are not talking mysticism here, but rather merely an environmental attribute for which we know very little.

That's the sad thing about consciousness studies. They are so often dismissed as being the work of quacks or mystics, but it's very much rooted in true scientific exploration just as is any field of legitimate experimental research.

You want to REALLY learn something interesting (fascinating more like it!) with respect to demonstrable consciousness field interference results? Check into this guy:Dr. Michael Persinger

Also, for the very best and most up to date collection of highly regarded papers on consciousness research, I cannot recommend this book highly enough. Been reading it for the last couple of days.

 

[trainedobserver]

Jeff,

What are you reading about? You used two terms of measurement to define it. It's like saying X = A British Thermal Unit (BTU) based Mile Per Hour (MPH). It is meaningless.

I still have no idea what you think consciousness or a field is to tell you truth and I'm trying. I can only go by your explanations here. Reading what someone else thinks won't help me understand what you are saying.

I've read and listened to a boat-load of this stuff. I'm telling you. It makes no sense. People who promote it cannot for the life of them explain it without making up new meanings to well established terms and invoking blind faith. It shakes out to be a religious belief rather than science pretty consistently.

 

[Randall]

I mean to say that things that appear in our consciousness (beliefs in this case) can only get there through brain processes which run prior to them emerging into consciousness. We are ignorant of all the pre-processing that occurs before we are aware of our thoughts.

OK. But why is that relevant? I apologize if stepped back into the middle of something and missed it.

 

[trainedobserver]

OK. But why is that relevant? I apologize if stepped back into the middle of something and missed it.

I was attempting to explain that "beliefs" arise unconsciously within the mind based the information we are exposed to processed through our predispositions. You do not "decide" to believe something. You believe something based on what you think is acceptable criteria for accepting new information. Your internal standards of evidence dictates what you will "believe." Through education and experience we can raise our standards of evidence where we no longer accept the existence of things like Santa Claus just because someone told us it was so.

 

[Randall]

Could you define what you mean by consciousness and field for me? I'm thinking just a line or two should do it. It's hard for me to discuss things like this unless I understand the terminology being used. It's like when a Mormon says "Jesus" and a Southern Baptist says "Jesus." They won't know they aren't talking about the same character until they each define their "Jesus."

On another thread we were discussing the idea of a consciousness field and were in the process of determining whether the theory was something omniscient or produced by each individual. You might want to check this link to get an idea where we were going: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/natural-and-fortean-natural.14039/page-5#post-171458

@Jeff Davis went missing from that thread and now it's popped up here again.

 

[Randall]

I was attempting to explain that "beliefs" arise unconsciously within the mind based the information we are exposed to processed through our predispositions. You do not "decide" to believe something. You believe something based on what you think is acceptable criteria for accepting new information. Your internal standards of evidence dictates what you will "believe." Through education and experience we can raise our standards of evidence where we no longer accept the existence of things like Santa Claus just because someone told us it was so.

OK. I've been through this several times elsewhere over the last several years and the point I was trying to get across is that the rationale used applies to every decision, not just belief. There's every reason based on science to believe that there's no such thing a "conscious decision". It's merely an illusion ( albeit a fairly convincing one ), and that returns us to the issue of relevance. Why does this point matter? I must be missing the bigger picture someplace.

 

[trainedobserver]

OK. I've been through this several times elsewhere over the last several years and the point I was trying to get across is that the rationale used applies to every decision, not just belief. There's every reason based on science to believe that there's no such thing a "conscious decision". It's merely an illusion ( albeit a fairly convincing one ), and that returns us to the issue of relevance. Why does this point matter? I must be missing the bigger picture someplace.

Relevance? This is a thread about believers and skeptics right? I was discussing belief.

 

[trainedobserver]

On another thread we were discussing the idea of a consciousness field and were in the process of determining whether the theory was something omniscient or produced by each individual. You might want to check this link to get an idea where we were going: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/natural-and-fortean-natural.14039/page-5#post-171458

@Jeff Davis went missing from that thread and now it's popped up here again.

Without a clear definition of consciousness and field there can be no real discussion about them. We might as just as well be talking about hicky-hoos and nimble-widgets performing spinkies in the zig-zig.

We are either talking concepts or objects. Concepts are intangible and live only in the mind. Objects have shape and presence and interact with other objects. Concepts do not.

[From somewhere in the back of the congregation: "Can I get a witness!"]

 

[stonehart]

I was attempting to explain that "beliefs" arise unconsciously within the mind based the information we are exposed to processed through our predispositions. You do not "decide" to believe something. You believe something based on what you think is acceptable criteria for accepting new information. Your internal standards of evidence dictates what you will "believe." Through education and experience we can raise our standards of evidence where we no longer accept the existence of things like Santa Claus just because someone told us it was so.

Nail hit right on the head.

Socialization in a nutshell, so but again if you have a belief system it will almost certainly reflect the one of the social group around you and just because a large group of people believe in a "sky daddy" said sky daddy is still no more real for it.

 

[Pygar2]

Or less, because some don't. And there are more reverent terms available than "sky daddy", btw.

 

[trainedobserver]

Or less, because some don't. And there are more reverent terms available than "sky daddy", btw.

Yes, Odin hates that irreverent nonsense. You'll find yourself plagued by dwarfs, rabid politicians, or something.

 

[Pygar2]

Well, at least you are getting warmer...

And that quote by Jacques Vallee- wasn't he the one who used to rip off UFO buffs by selling them books about UFOs, despite the fact that not one UFO ever seen has turned out to be extraterrestrial? Fine one to point his finger at others... a con man claiming that others are, too...

 

[stonehart]

Or less, because some don't. And there are more reverent terms available than "sky daddy", btw.

I was being polite

 

[trainedobserver]

As I'm driving home today, I look up into the sky and see a magnificent display of storm clouds. I think, "Man, I wish I could paint that." and then suddenly realize that I am doing that very thing with the substance of my being, becoming concious of my conciousness displaying the world in magnificent splendar exceeding any thing ever done with a brush. Wonder, joy, liberation, then I had to take my exit.

 

[Randall]

Relevance? This is a thread about believers and skeptics right? I was discussing belief.

Let me try again. Since everyone's awareness ( both skeptics and believers ) is based on the same subconscious processes you mention, what does mentioning it do to reinforce any particular view? We might as well say that believers breath air. So what? So does everyone else. I don't see the significance. What am I missing?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Without a clear definition of consciousness and field there can be no real discussion about them. We might as just as well be talking about hicky-hoos and nimble-widgets performing spinkies in the zig-zig.

We are either talking concepts or objects. Concepts are intangible and live only in the mind. Objects have shape and presence and interact with other objects. Concepts do not.

[From somewhere in the back of the congregation: "Can I get a witness!"]

My goodness, it sounds as if you're starving for knowledge! If we both had a nickle for every concept we swallow whole (read: evolution) that is rife with more intangibility than a beauty contest consisting of fully amputeed octopuses, we could eat as many burnt steaks as we could stomach for a year. Don't go there.

What did Einstein tell us was more important than knowledge? Use it my friend, before you lose it!

The imagination is no less a muscle than your bicep. It's gets much stronger with practice. It turns to flab however, if you don't. Hold the vision of those storm clouds strongly in your mind despite that exit, if you don't run into something, you'll know you're on the right track.

You want a man who understood the value of "not knowing". Try Max Planck, or just about any other great experimental visionary thinker from the past. They were ALL ridiculed at one time or another. Revision's a bitch, but there is really no sense in hiding your mind so far behind the curve of speculative or hypothetical thinking. There are some things in life that are obvious, others require a bit more effort to fathom.

I have pointed you toward MUCH knowledge. To turn away from as much as if to state that "there is nothing there" is to admit utter imaginative blindness. Fortunately, the greatest gift humanity possesses, the ability to create itself, (the imagination) can render the blind to a status of sight unseen saw. See?

 

[Randall]

Without a clear definition of consciousness and field there can be no real discussion about them. We might as just as well be talking about hicky-hoos and nimble-widgets performing spinkies in the zig-zig.

We are either talking concepts or objects. Concepts are intangible and live only in the mind. Objects have shape and presence and interact with other objects. Concepts do not.

[From somewhere in the back of the congregation: "Can I get a witness!"]

You make valid points but are missing some context. I think a little background might help. The post I linked to had splintered off from another thread called "How Do You Define Consciousness", and the theory we were discussing is that consciousness is a field. This is a perfectly legitimate idea to explore, and here is how we got there in a nutshell:

Consciousness isn't like a typical object. In other words we can't look at brain matter and see what a person sees in their mind. @Michael Allen and I discussed this at some length using the example of a red Ferrari. We may see the red Ferrari in our imagination, yet we know that no amount of dissecting of the brain ( assuming it could be done ) would reveal a tiny little red Ferrari hidden among the synapses.

Yet the image in our mind persists. We know it's not It's made of the same materials as a "real-life" Ferrari, nor is it made of brain matter. In fact we're not sure what it is made of, or if it's made of anything at all. We just know it's there, so the idea that perhaps it takes the form of a field, analogous to the idea of a magnetic field, actually seems to be a good fit. Why? Because we don't really know what these kinds of fields are made of, but we do know they exist and that they can store and trade energy.

The mention of brain waves and EEGs was also part of that discussion, and we left off asking the question of whether or not the consciousness field is the product of a functioning brain or something separate that a functioning brain can tap into. I'm of the opinion that both may be possible, and that was what the link I posted was about. So once you see where we were going with that discussion perhaps you could weigh in with an opinion?

The short version of my own opinion is that consciousness is an emergent property of a normally functioning lucid brain/body system, and that the idea of it being thought about as a field as discussed above, fits with that.