1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Nature of Consciousness

Discussion in 'Life, the Universe and Everything' started by San, Apr 21, 2017.

  1. San


    Continued / forked discussion from here:

    To lead in, two quotes by Max Planck (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Quotes):

    "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

    "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

    Several decades after the great physicist, efforts were begun to break this paradigm and to try and get behind what that actually is, consciousness. Related phenomena like psychic abilities are researched in earnest since then, too, with some interesting outcomes. I can't describe all this in one go, just to start somewhere and if there is interest to add further pointers later, here goes.

    Several years ago I found out about an online experiment by Dean Radin described here (further down in the article linked below after lengthy introduction). I still have trouble believing what I saw. By directing your attention to it, or taking it away, you could influence a value which got plotted on the screen, which was claimed to be derived from the "degree of randomness" of the output of a true random number generator, i.e. not a computer simulated pseudorandom sequence, but an actual hardware device based on measuring a quantum effect. With only your conscious attention you could actually influence it, and from a distance. Done enough times, on and off, to eliminate chance and until you have to believe that you're actually doing it. No microphone or camera or any feedback mechanism connected, or you would have been alerted if the website tried to access any peripheral device, so no idea how it could have been fraud. This has consequences...
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Jamira

    Jamira Samurai Girl

    Sorry San, I couldn't resist. Just a sidenote: Crazy historical crossroads! Guess what happened 1943. Old guy Max Planck found shelter from Nazi regime in the village Rogaetz near Magdeburg. That's the village I lived at for 35 years (1954-1989).
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
  3. San


    Nice coincidence! I got to travel these parts both no earlier and no later than 1990, to come again and stay a few years in Jena from '92 onwards. Those were interesting times, not just for the potholes.

    Some more material about the topics and names dropped in your thread -- sorry if it's overwhelming at once, it sure took me years to study and come to terms with it at all:

    Heinz von Foerster: "Truth is the invention of a liar"

    Penrose & Hameroff

    Puthoff & Targ

    Ingo Swann

    Thomas Campbell

    And an o/t... I slept through this :(
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  4. San


    Again was setting out for a short answer and then it started flooding in your thread...

    I don't have a definite answer to your question. Research is only just beginning to scratch the surface. The difficulty lies in the paradigm which appears in cybernetics and quantum mechanics: The observer is part of the observed system, cannot separate from it, even alters the system through the act of observation.

    What we know is there seem to be two sides of it, an autonomous part which manifests in a sufficiently sophisticated physical body and creates individual entities (or what we perceive as individuality), and a common part, a "universe of consciousness" or "universal unconscious" as Carl Jung put it, which stays connected and keeps delivering information to us. This is evidenced by the finding that things like remote viewing actually work. Other cultures have found this, too, even long ago. Vedic tradition calls it "Akashic Records". Some writers postulate the universe "is" consciousness, like a field that permeates everything or constitutes the fabric at the most basic level, as opposed to our perception of being a dot of life in a basically dead space. I like to think of it from the angle that everything is information (Eckhart Tolle has a similar approach -- also good to help with coping). There is a lot more to discover, certainly.

    AI is basically the effort to understand the system by attempting to create a simulation of it, just like every other model in physics. Whether it will be capable of becoming self-aware merely through sophistication or if the natural body has properties which we cannot replicate this way, is one of the big questions. That part about connection to the universe is not currently considered by the AI community. We don't yet have a theory or even a shred of understanding what the nature of that connection is.
  5. Many years ago I read a bunch of stuff by Carl Jung, and many of the folks that have followed in his footsteps, when I was doing my BFA as an undergrad, and doing a lot of studies on my own dreams, etc. It's a very interesting branch of study... I personally believe that the conscious and unconscious mind communicate in a much deeper way than many of us realize, and that the universal patterns that are used for the method of communicating, while different from person to person in the actual symbols used, as it is related to the history of that person's experiences, derives from a very common denominator... i.e. his theory of archetypes. His archetype theory was primarily based on the character types I believe, but my personal experience it that there is a lot more to it than that, and it has also to do with the physical settings, scenery, symbols, landmarks, etc. that we all experience... If you have a recurring dream that is in a certain location or scene that has many common denominators with other times you are in a similar scene in another dream, it has a purpose, and meaning, and the way that scene and the ones before and after it connect have something to do with the way your conscious and unconscious mind are talking to one another, in a physical way, sort of literally 'mapping' out the ideas and how they connect to one another in the archetype outlines associated with both scenes... sometimes it can actually be a very physical pathway in the dream which could relate to the physical interconnection between two cellular structures in your physical brain... If you haven't tried dream journals, do it.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Kemlo

    Kemlo Zone of Silence

    Coincidentally just re-reading 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' that based upon some of the posts in here I'm betting at least one of you will have read.

    If into Carl Jung well can highly recommend American psychotherapist/writer Sheldon Kopp (eg. the popular 'If you meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him' or the harder to find 'The Hanged Man') who is very readable, human, witty, funny and educational.

    Recently I've started to convince myself that everything in the universe is alive in some way and that time does not follow a one-way, linear route but that the past is in some way accessible to us and that everything we do really does 'echo through the universe for all eternity'. So watch out!

    Oh, and how can a big blob of grey matter in our heads create our experience of the world and all it's wonders?
  7. San


    Here is where I'm coming from with all this -- finding out (much against my established belief) that this actually works had a major impact on my world view and approach to paradigms and belief systems (- they tend to get in the way):


    A short introduction:

    A group I'm involved with has created a Discord channel just about a week or so ago. I can send invites in case someone is interested.
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2017
  8. San


    To both: Exactly!
    • Like Like x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  9. On the past lives thing big crunch theory has mostly been disproven but still can lead to some romantic notions of how it might work
  10. San


    Again a post by someone else triggered a waterfall which I realized at the last moment before making a fool of myself. Posting it would have seemed totally out of place to everybody else. It belongs in this context and has interesting implications. From here, below I tried (and failed) to summarize the above:

    There is evidence that you can figure out a human's (or conscious entity's, to be precise, even a collective's) intent and actions this way, but not a machine, much less a simulation solely existing in software. Because they have no consciousness. There are protocols to work around this by remote viewing your future self looking at feedback based on actual outcome (e.g. http://www.appliedprecog.com/) but applying this to every single drop of a mining probe or other actions in this game is more than a little tedious. Too much effort for the potential gain.

    If you want to accelerate it and bank on pure instinct guiding you (like dowsing), you need to at least set your brain in theta state for the duration, or recognize when it is and only act during that time. This is the state where you're capable of capturing the minute impulses given by subconscious without them being drowned in the noise your conscious mind makes all the time. The key thing to set your intent on is asking "Which path should I choose for optimum outcome?" rather than "What exists there hidden from my eyes I need to react to?" (For this hint alone people pay thousands of dollars in training courses).

    This is a major feat, very few people master the degree of self-control needed. Serious scientific research is just beginning to look into how this is possible at all, after experimental statistics show something weird going on can no longer be refuted. Unfortunately the field is so littered with esoteric quackery that finding proven information is difficult. Until this is mastered by the masses, they who run the systems enjoy the advantage. After it is mastered by the masses, all gambling will cease to exist. You may need to re-evaluate what it actually is you enjoy doing -- I for myself eschew futility.

    Fully aware how far out this post is...* and how hard to follow what triggered it. We're still in a game forum. Allow me to cross-post this in another place where the topic was more properly introduced. The consequences seem philosophical at first, but become very concrete and technical once you start implementing the methods found so far.

    * referring to PCF where it was first written as reply
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2017
  11. San


    Max Tegmark sees people as "food, rearranged." That makes his answer to complicated questions like "What is consciousness?" simple: It's just math. Why? Because it's the patterns, not the particles, that matter.

  12. San


  13. So the remote viewing session didn’t help to identify the murderer?

    I’m very sceptical. The stuff he was drawing seems very guessable given that the girl had been drinking.

    Edit: I just read that the guy hadn’t been told anything about the girl or the circumstances of her disappearance so apologies I only skimmed through the video. My point below still stands though.

    And even if he had been spot on with his ID drawings (cartoon drawing of guy notwithstanding) you would need to take into account all the remote viewings that failed miserably.

    That is, ‘hidden evidence’ that fails to support the remote viewing technique because only the successes gain prominence.
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2018
  14. San


    You're right to an extent, but this needs to be emphasized: He knew absolutely nothing about even the nature of the target. He had this alphanumeric reference code thrown at him and nothing else. It could have been a photo of an apple pie, an asteroid, a newspaper headline, a reference to an event far back in history, a mysterious echolot recording, someone's medical condition to be diagnosed, a question about the location of your lost car keys, or whatever. Identifying the nature of the target alone is a major feat, any detail on top of that is cream. You could argue that once he is beginning to produce a narrative, he could get sucked into it and continue in a plausible vein, but out of his own imagination. This would have to measure up against feedback of course, which may not be available in all circumstances. The video was meant for a demonstration of method, proof of concept is better found in statistics of similar attempts over a long time. These are given in some of the literature pointed out further above. Of course the successes always get the limelight, but the rest is still in the numbers.

    Remote Viewing isn't perfect, there is a running error rate of at least 20%. Where it gets very powerful is when you work in a team and find corroborating elements between independent viewers who were given the same task. The other thing is, what you get is a description, not automatic identification. Identification must come from subsequent analysis. It is very much like police work, where you need to extract actionable intelligence out of a number of witness accounts.

    But believe me, I share your skepticism... since discovering this and still today. It's when trying it for yourself creates some surprises you're struggling to explain, that you're beginning to think maybe the world is bigger than textbook wisdom has captured so far. Keeping a healthy disbelief ist vital for avoiding to get sucked into the numerous esoteric streams of which the field is littered. This doesn't make things easier for real scientific exploration. But it's getting tackled, slowly.
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2018
  15. You make some excellent points San.

    I don’t think that we’re very apart on this, for example on keeping an open mind whilst at the same time not taking things at face value.

Share This Page