Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Gee » Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:13 pm

Ginkgo;

Please consider my responses below.
Ginkgo wrote:
Gee wrote:A few points: Emotions are not limited by time and space; last time I checked matter is limited by time and space. How do they explain that?
They do it by denying the very thing you are trying to establish,viz. substance dualism.
I am NOT trying to establish substance dualism. I am NOT trying to establish materialism. I am NOT trying to establish any "ism". I understand that you have studied many of the isms and probably compare things that I state to your understandings, and I doubt that you are trying to insult me. But stating that I am trying to establish or emulate any ism is at best irritating and at worst offensive. Please stop trying to put my thinking into a box.

So materialism is a theory where they just deny anything that does not fit their theory? So their theory is "Let's Pretend". Wonderful. This is why I don't like isms. When someone decides what an unknown is, then creates a theory to prove what they already decided, they are not doing philosophy, they are doing what is called "sloppy science".

Reality is not required to adjust itself to theory; theory is required to adjust itself to reality.
Ginkgo wrote:So they claim just as matter is limited to time and space so are emotions.
So they can prove that emotions are matter?
Ginkgo wrote:
Gee wrote:My conclusions are that emotion is made up of information, thought, etc., so are they saying that thoughts are material?
Yes they say this. However, they can and do use the argument that emotion is information.
So they can prove that thoughts are matter? Oh, and ask them to explain why some thoughts move (emotion) and other thoughts don't (thought).
Ginkgo wrote:I think it is difficult to say that emotions require movement in order to exist.This is because movement is a property of physical things.

Agreed. It is difficult to say it and to prove it, but it is not difficult at all to observe it or experience it.
Ginkgo wrote:I don't think it is a major problem because emotions as a non-physical substance doesn't require movement in order to be shared.
Bonds, ESP, and premonitions all require information to move from one place/time to another and all work through emotion. Sounds to me like emotion moves.
Ginkgo wrote:I would be probably more accurate to say that a computer can emulate some aspects of human thought. There are some aspects of thought that are non-computational. I don't think you need the dichotomy between emotions and other types of thoughts.
Emotion and thought are not the same thing. If you want to pretend they are, I can't stop you.

Gee

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Gee » Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:52 pm

Greylorn;
Greylorn Ell wrote:Gee,
I'd like to see your reference material for the notion that emotions can jump time and space.
Thanks,
Greylorn
Yeah! Me too! I'd like to see it also.

This idea came about very recently while I was contemplating doing a thread on the Supernatural. One of the things that I wanted to address specifically was premonitions. I know that most people do not believe that premonitions can be real, but I had at least one witnessed, documented, verifiable premonition, so I know they exist.

Like most people, I assumed that premonitions are the result of a mind moving forward in time and learning something that could otherwise not be known, but I could not see how that could work. It has always been clear that emotion is involved and suspected that bonding somehow entangles the future event with the mind learning the information, but the process did not make any sense. There was no ability or reason for the mind to quest for this information.

Emotion is the cause of most of the supernatural, so emotion has to cause premonitions, but there is no emotional problem until the future information is learned, so it was all backward. Then I realized that the emotion has to flash from the event back, rather than from the mind forward. This way of looking at it made it much clearer and more valid and understandable. Emotion works through the sub/unconscious aspect of mind. Emotion is reactionary. The sub/unconscious aspect of mind does not recognize or deal with time and space.

But what does that say about time and space? I am not a scientist and have no idea, but I do know that many people are studying time and considering that all times may exist -- always. Maybe this is one of the reasons why they think so?

Gee

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Ginkgo » Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:54 am

Gee wrote: I am NOT trying to establish substance dualism. I am NOT trying to establish materialism. I am NOT trying to establish any "ism". I understand that you have studied many of the isms and probably compare things that I state to your understandings, and I doubt that you are trying to insult me. But stating that I am trying to establish or emulate any ism is at best irritating and at worst offensive. Please stop trying to put my thinking into a box.
Fair enough, I won't put your theory in a box.This would restrict me somewhat so I'll try working the other way.

Putting things in boxes is called categorization. It is been with us since the time of the ancient Greeks and it still is an important tool.

The problem is that it we cannot dismiss a theory just because we don't like it. We must have good reasons for doing so. I don't particularly like materialist explanations for consciousness but I cannot say materialists are wrong because they are pretending to know what consciousness is. In exactly the same way I cannot say your theory is wrong because you are pretending to know what consciousness is. When it comes to materialism I need to come up with some sort of logical and/or observational evidence to prove it wrong.

Unfortunately this would involves introducing some type of "ism" A way to prove materialism wrong is to demonstrate that consciousness has different properties to matter in motion. And the best way to do this is to establish some type of dualism. A working knowledge in this area can be useful.
Gee wrote:
So materialism is a theory where they just deny anything that does not fit their theory? So their theory is "Let's Pretend". Wonderful. This is why I don't like isms. When someone decides what an unknown is, then creates a theory to prove what they already decided, they are not doing philosophy, they are doing what is called "sloppy science".

Reality is not required to adjust itself to theory; theory is required to adjust itself to reality.
There is an important difference between doing scientific ontology and metaphysical ontology. Conflating the two is very common.
Gee wrote:
So they can prove that thoughts are matter? Oh, and ask them to explain why some thoughts move (emotion) and other thoughts don't (thought).
It depends on what you mean by proving.

I guess they would say this is not possible.
Gee wrote: Agreed. It is difficult to say it and to prove it, but it is not difficult at all to observe it or experience it.
If we can observe it then it is possible to come up with a theory to explain the observations.


Gee wrote: Emotion and thought are not the same thing. If you want to pretend they are, I can't stop you.

Gee
But, I'm not saying they are the same thing.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Ginkgo » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:53 am

Gee wrote:Greylorn;
Greylorn Ell wrote:Gee,
I'd like to see your reference material for the notion that emotions can jump time and space.
Thanks,
Greylorn
Yeah! Me too! I'd like to see it also.

This idea came about very recently while I was contemplating doing a thread on the Supernatural. One of the things that I wanted to address specifically was premonitions. I know that most people do not believe that premonitions can be real, but I had at least one witnessed, documented, verifiable premonition, so I know they exist.

Like most people, I assumed that premonitions are the result of a mind moving forward in time and learning something that could otherwise not be known, but I could not see how that could work. It has always been clear that emotion is involved and suspected that bonding somehow entangles the future event with the mind learning the information, but the process did not make any sense. There was no ability or reason for the mind to quest for this information.

Emotion is the cause of most of the supernatural, so emotion has to cause premonitions, but there is no emotional problem until the future information is learned, so it was all backward. Then I realized that the emotion has to flash from the event back, rather than from the mind forward. This way of looking at it made it much clearer and more valid and understandable. Emotion works through the sub/unconscious aspect of mind. Emotion is reactionary. The sub/unconscious aspect of mind does not recognize or deal with time and space.

But what does that say about time and space? I am not a scientist and have no idea, but I do know that many people are studying time and considering that all times may exist -- always. Maybe this is one of the reasons why they think so?

Gee
If true, such phenomenon defy any classical explanation of space and time. Subsequent explanations (if at all possible) would require a quantum explanation of spacetime. Very contentious when we try and explain this type of thing in macro terms using quantum theory. I'm not saying it is impossible.

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Gee » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:41 am

Ginkgo;

Please consider the following:
Ginkgo wrote:Fair enough, I won't put your theory in a box. This would restrict me somewhat so I'll try working the other way.

Putting things in boxes is called categorization. It is been with us since the time of the ancient Greeks and it still is an important tool.
Good. I was pretty sure you were not trying to make me crazy, and I have become aware of your tendency to categorize information. It is a good tool to use when dealing with vast amounts of information, and I should probably use it more myself. But I am also aware that many of my ideas can fit very nicely into materialism, physicalism, dualism, substance dualism, panpsychism, etc. Hell, I even agree with some religious ideas. But I do not fully agree with any of them, so I do not want to be called by an 'ism'.

Every 'ism' has some truth in it, or it would not survive, but each 'ism' has learned about one small aspect of consciousness, and then theorizes that this small aspect represents the whole thing. It would be like looking at a puzzle piece and stating that you now know what the whole picture looks like. I call that bullshit.

I don't actually have a theory of consciousness. I have a lot of ideas, experiences, observations, and more questions than answers, but not any kind of coherent theory. If I could say anything that I believe is truth regarding consciousness, I would say that this issue is a lot more complex than people realize.
Ginkgo wrote:The problem is that we cannot dismiss a theory just because we don't like it. We must have good reasons for doing so. I don't particularly like materialist explanations for consciousness but I cannot say materialists are wrong because they are pretending to know what consciousness is.

Well, I can say they are wrong. Materialism completely dismisses religion, which represents tens of thousands of years of study, and they dismiss all of the supernatural, so my thought is that they are carving up consciousness to make it fit their theory -- therefore I can dismiss their theory.
Ginkgo wrote:In exactly the same way I cannot say your theory is wrong because you are pretending to know what consciousness is.

Uh uh. I study how consciousness works; I have not figured out what it actually is. The only determinations that I have made is that consciousness is what we think and feel and what we are aware of. And that consciousness is part of all life. None of this is disputed in the SEP.
Ginkgo wrote:When it comes to materialism I need to come up with some sort of logical and/or observational evidence to prove it wrong.
That would be hard to do, because they will simply dismiss anything that is not material. The closest that I have come to proving a nonmaterial consciousness is in considering bonds between people. Of course, there is bonding in other species, but they will tell you that is instinct, even though no one really knows what instincts are. (chuckle)

If you go to Wiki and look up Deinstitutionalization, you may find something that you can use; also look up Isolation. I think you will find that isolation from other humans causes people to get a little barmy, but isolation from life causes a mental breakdown and eventual death in adults. Institutionalization was studied in the 40's? with regard to orphans. It was discovered that a change of workers, who had bonded with babies, two years and under, caused the babies to die -- just quit like Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. There was no physical reason for the deaths, but apparently breaking the bond with the worker, which would be a second broken bond for the babies, because they were orphans, was just too much. Orphaned babies are now placed with very carefully selected foster parents and left there until they are at least two years old to prevent this problem.

Of course, both of these examples will reinforce the idea that consciousness exists between us and outside of us. Some people say that all life is connected -- they call it spirituality. :wink:
Ginkgo wrote:Unfortunately this would involves introducing some type of "ism" A way to prove materialism wrong is to demonstrate that consciousness has different properties to matter in motion. And the best way to do this is to establish some type of dualism. A working knowledge in this area can be useful.
Maybe. But I doubt that dualism is correct. Religion took what it knew about consciousness and called it God -- one thing, one very magical thing. So science took monism, everything comes from matter, and religion took dualism, all matter and life comes from God. My suspicions are that there are at least three things, not two or one, that come together to cause life.
Ginkgo wrote:
Gee wrote:Reality is not required to adjust itself to theory; theory is required to adjust itself to reality.
There is an important difference between doing scientific ontology and metaphysical ontology. Conflating the two is very common.
Well, I don't think that I was talking about ontology. I was thinking more in the line of matching methodologies and procedures to goals. Everyone knows that there exists a 'scientific methodology', and I even read in a science forum that Feynman stated that first you guess, then you do your experiment to prove or disprove your hypothesis. This is fine for science because science deals with knowns, but it is a terrible way to do philosophy.

In philosophy, starting out with a guess or theory is a very good way to end up with hogwash. Philosophy deals with unknowns, so a much stricter rule is necessary when creating a premise. Without a strictly defined valid premise based on observation and/or experience, the philosopher will move into the realm of speculation, imagination, fantasy, and self-serving arrogance. One can not study the unknown using the 'scientific method'. That was my point.
Ginkgo wrote:
Gee wrote:So they can prove that thoughts are matter? Oh, and ask them to explain why some thoughts move (emotion) and other thoughts don't (thought).
It depends on what you mean by proving.

I guess they would say this is not possible.

Proving would follow the rules of science, so it would either be testing or predictability.
Ginkgo wrote:
Gee wrote: Agreed. It is difficult to say it and to prove it, but it is not difficult at all to observe it or experience it.
If we can observe it then it is possible to come up with a theory to explain the observations.
This already happened. A person dies, their movement quits, their feeling quits, their emotions and thoughts quit. Science theorizes that the body stopped producing those things. Religion theorizes that God took them back. (chuckle chuckle) Then there was 1,000 years of debate about who is the boss.
Ginkgo wrote:
Gee wrote:Emotion and thought are not the same thing. If you want to pretend they are, I can't stop you.
But, I'm not saying they are the same thing.
Then what did you mean?

Gee

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Greylorn Ell » Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:12 am

Gee wrote:Greylorn;
Greylorn Ell wrote:Gee,
I'd like to see your reference material for the notion that emotions can jump time and space.
Thanks,
Greylorn
Yeah! Me too! I'd like to see it also.

This idea came about very recently while I was contemplating doing a thread on the Supernatural. One of the things that I wanted to address specifically was premonitions. I know that most people do not believe that premonitions can be real, but I had at least one witnessed, documented, verifiable premonition, so I know they exist.

Like most people, I assumed that premonitions are the result of a mind moving forward in time and learning something that could otherwise not be known, but I could not see how that could work. It has always been clear that emotion is involved and suspected that bonding somehow entangles the future event with the mind learning the information, but the process did not make any sense. There was no ability or reason for the mind to quest for this information.

Emotion is the cause of most of the supernatural, so emotion has to cause premonitions, but there is no emotional problem until the future information is learned, so it was all backward. Then I realized that the emotion has to flash from the event back, rather than from the mind forward. This way of looking at it made it much clearer and more valid and understandable. Emotion works through the sub/unconscious aspect of mind. Emotion is reactionary. The sub/unconscious aspect of mind does not recognize or deal with time and space.

But what does that say about time and space? I am not a scientist and have no idea, but I do know that many people are studying time and considering that all times may exist -- always. Maybe this is one of the reasons why they think so?

Gee
Gee,

Beginning at age 12 I have had randomly scattered psychic experiences, beginning with telepathy, at which I'm a good transmitter. I'd studied dozens of books on the subject, including the occult, and found that every kind of psychic phenomena fit nicely into the early version of Beon Theory, except precognition. I could not envision a mechanism for it, so decided that it was impossible despite plenty of reports in the literature.

Then three days before the Apollo 13 launch I awakened at 5am amid an unusual dream, unusual in the sense that it had a quality of realness unlike any dream/nightmare I'd experienced. I was watching the launch on my little 7" black and white TV, which related two events:

1. I minute or so into the launch, the central engine inexplicably shut down. Nonetheless the launch vehicle proceeded, and the in-dream TV announcer declared a non-problem. My view of the vehicle was the standard vertical picture of a rocket going up.

2. My next dream image was of the lunar modules disconnected from the launch vehicle stages, moving horizontally, as if through space. (I was working in the space program at the time, interested, and knew what these things looked like.) Then the damn thing exploded, right in the middle. I woke up, abruptly conscious, took this in and returned to sleep.

Over breakfast a few hours later I mentioned this dream in detail to my wife (witness), only because of the striking quality of the dream. The thought that it might be precognitive never crossed my mind. I was so uninterested that I slept in during the Sat. am. (?) launch. However, wife was more curious than I and so turned on the TV while making breakfast. She reported that the launch went off without a hitch.

My interest became slightly piqued upon reading Sunday's newspaper, which contained launch details-- including that a minute or so into launch the Saturn 5's central engine had shut down prematurely. Well-programmed computer control systems took over and burned the four outer engines long enough to compensate for the reduced thrust. I thought that was curious, in light of my dream, but did not think further about it at the time.

Then on Tuesday (?), at work while the astronauts were on their way to the moon, I learned of the explosion and instantly was required to accept that precognitions were a fact. How I wish I'd shared my dream with the skeptical professors and engineers with whom I worked at the time!

So I was stuck with fact that my theory did not support, meaning that my theories needed some tweaking, or that they completely sucked. I remained stuck until two months later an issue of Science magazine arrived with an article theorizing an interesting interpretation of Special Relativity (the first, easy form of Big Al's theory).

SR predicts that matter cannot exceed the speed of light, because an infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate matter to "c." However, the theorist hypothesized that "information" might not be similarly limited, and did the math on what would happen to information transmitted faster than "c." It would move backward in time, and thus into into the future!

I was surprised that Science, a journal for the hard science community, published this paper, because the fastest way we have to transmit information is via electromagnetic signals, which move only at "c," light-speed. There is no way to transmit information faster, according to conventional physics.

However, beons are not theoretically limited to light-speed operations. It was back then when I began to think that I should take my theory more seriously.
________________

I recommend more research on your part before opening a "supernatural" thread. Dean Radin is a fairly good start, but his chapters should be interspersed with repeated viewings of Rupert Sheldrake's Youtube videos.
________________

After all this blather, here is something which may interest you. As I expanded Beon Theory to explain this new information an obvious question arose. Why isn't all information from the future transmitted back to the past? It is, but there is a lot of it, and none of it is focused. Obtaining a specific complex pattern of information would be like taking a photograph with a camera that had no lens.

So, what might focus the simultaneous transmission of specific information, ideally from multiple sources at the same moment? You are allowed one and only one guess.

Greylorn

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Ginkgo » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:20 am

Gee wrote: Well, I don't think that I was talking about ontology. I was thinking more in the line of matching methodologies and procedures to goals. Everyone knows that there exists a 'scientific methodology', and I even read in a science forum that Feynman stated that first you guess, then you do your experiment to prove or disprove your hypothesis. This is fine for science because science deals with knowns, but it is a terrible way to do philosophy.
If we are trying to to answer questions about the way the world is then we are basically doing metaphysics. In the case of consciousness we might want to know about the types of things that exist as the result of consciousness. For example, emotions and thoughts. This being then case then we would be doing ontology, but not necessarily scientific ontology.

By "guess" I think Feynman means hypothesis. If the starting point for science is just guesswork then it would be an unknown rather than a known. Nonetheless, I can see what you mean by science starting out with something that is known. Perhaps the scientist could say that he/she has some good reasons for the "guess". Perhaps an educated guess would be a good way of saying it.
Gee wrote:
In philosophy, starting out with a guess or theory is a very good way to end up with hogwash. Philosophy deals with unknowns, so a much stricter rule is necessary when creating a premise. Without a strictly defined valid premise based on observation and/or experience, the philosopher will move into the realm of speculation, imagination, fantasy, and self-serving arrogance. One can not study the unknown using the 'scientific method'. That was my point.
It depends on the type of philosophy you are doing. Your example of observation* for creating a premise sounds like propositional logic ,whereas I think you probably mean postulate or axiom. A postulate is usually a defined starting point upon which a philosophical theory theory can be built. When it comes to a postulate no observation or experience is required because the grounding statement is seen to be self-evidently true. But again, it depends on the type of philosophy you are doing.
Gee wrote: Then what did you mean?

Gee

If I were to say that there is no difference between emotions and thought then I would claiming numerical identity. Numerical identity is the claim made by the materialists in philosophy of mind. In other words, they are saying, "the mind is the brain".

When it comes to emotions and thoughts I prefer to say that emotions and thought have a qualitative identity. Basically, some aspects are the same while others are different.


* Correction made.
Last edited by Ginkgo on Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:53 am

Ginkgo wrote: If true, such phenomenon defy any classical explanation of space and time. Subsequent explanations (if at all possible) would require a quantum explanation of spacetime. Very contentious when we try and explain this type of thing in macro terms using quantum theory. I'm not saying it is impossible.
If you do not have a theory that explains something, how can you possibly declare the paradigm within which it must be explained?

You've defined what it means to be close-minded. Welcome to the QM priesthood.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:02 am

Gee wrote: I don't actually have a theory of consciousness. I have a lot of ideas, experiences, observations, and more questions than answers, but not any kind of coherent theory. If I could say anything that I believe is truth regarding consciousness, I would say that this issue is a lot more complex than people realize. ..

...The only determinations that I have made is that consciousness is what we think and feel and what we are aware of. And that consciousness is part of all life.

Gee
Gee,

First you profess not to have a theory of consciousness, then make some statements about the nature of consciousness, that, although confused, represent a serious, faulty, and trivial theory of consciousness.

You must have voted for B.O.

Greylorn

iEvoke
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 8:48 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by iEvoke » Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:23 pm

Paul said, "To be the word consciousness means alive."

When speaking on the topic about the nature of consciousness, there's always problems.

I personally think that consciousness exists outside our body in various forms. I only think that consciousness has been limited by teachings and social institutions. I think that people have been made to fear altered states and so on. Now, the problem to answer this question firstly is. 1) We know there is a mind but we yet haven't even began to explore it. 2) We know about the mind but we don't know where it is.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:07 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
You've defined what it means to be close-minded. Welcome to the QM priesthood.

Greylorn

Thank-you. Tomorrow I get to wear robes and a funny hat.

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Gee » Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:53 am

Greylorn;

My responses to you and Ginkgo will be brief because I am tired and having a bad week. Please consider:
Greylorn Ell wrote:Beginning at age 12 I have had randomly scattered psychic experiences, beginning with telepathy, at which I'm a good transmitter. I'd studied dozens of books on the subject, including the occult, and found that every kind of psychic phenomena fit nicely into the early version of Beon Theory, except precognition. I could not envision a mechanism for it, so decided that it was impossible despite plenty of reports in the literature.
This makes sense, as most people, who have random experiences start to have them at puberty, or when hormones in the body change. People who have consistent psychic experiences, such as aura readers, seem to have the experiences from early childhood along with their first memories. I suspect these people have a 'hard-wired' type of psychic brain, that is not dependent upon chemical changes for the experience.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Then three days before the Apollo 13 launch I awakened at 5am amid an unusual dream, unusual in the sense that it had a quality of realness unlike any dream/nightmare I'd experienced. I was watching the launch on my little 7" black and white TV, which related two events:

1. I minute or so into the launch, the central engine inexplicably shut down.

2. My next dream image was of the lunar modules disconnected from the launch vehicle stages, moving horizontally, as if through space. (I was working in the space program at the time, interested, and knew what these things looked like.) Then the damn thing exploded, right in the middle.

Over breakfast a few hours later I mentioned this dream in detail to my wife (witness), only because of the striking quality of the dream. The thought that it might be precognitive never crossed my mind.

My interest became slightly piqued upon reading Sunday's newspaper, which contained launch details-- including that a minute or so into launch the Saturn 5's central engine had shut down prematurely.

Then on Tuesday (?), at work while the astronauts were on their way to the moon, I learned of the explosion and instantly was required to accept that precognitions were a fact. How I wish I'd shared my dream with the skeptical professors and engineers with whom I worked at the time!
I don't doubt that this happened, but unfortunately other people will. They will say that a dream state is unreliable and non reproducible so it is not valid. It is very difficult to try to get people to give up their biases in order to see something for what it is.
Greylorn Ell wrote:SR predicts that matter cannot exceed the speed of light, because an infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate matter to "c." However, the theorist hypothesized that "information" might not be similarly limited, and did the math on what would happen to information transmitted faster than "c." It would move backward in time, and thus into into the future!

I was surprised that Science, a journal for the hard science community, published this paper, because the fastest way we have to transmit information is via electromagnetic signals, which move only at "c," light-speed. There is no way to transmit information faster, according to conventional physics.

This is all very interesting, but not something that I can understand. Not a scientist.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I recommend more research on your part before opening a "supernatural" thread. Dean Radin is a fairly good start, but his chapters should be interspersed with repeated viewings of Rupert Sheldrake's Youtube videos.

I don't agree. I do not need to know everything to start a thread on the supernatural, I only need to share what I think and know, then learn from other people. This post that you wrote and I am quoting would be an asset to a thread on the supernatural -- and valued input. The point is to share information.

The problem that I am having is with energy. I can only type one or two post per day, and that is on a good day, so I am not sure that I could properly respond to and maintain a new thread.

I watched some of Sheldrake's videos. He is an interesting man.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Why isn't all information from the future transmitted back to the past? It is, but there is a lot of it, and none of it is focused. Obtaining a specific complex pattern of information would be like taking a photograph with a camera that had no lens.

So, what might focus the simultaneous transmission of specific information, ideally from multiple sources at the same moment? You are allowed one and only one guess.
Bonds entangle minds and information, and they work through emotion. If you want to call that Beon, then you can, but I can't.

Gee
-----------------------
Greylorn;
Greylorn Ell wrote:First you profess not to have a theory of consciousness, then make some statements about the nature of consciousness, that, although confused, represent a serious, faulty, and trivial theory of consciousness.
I do not yet have a theory on consciousness. The statements that you noted were not a theory, they were the terms that I used to define the word, 'consciousness'. I worked hard to determine what basic simple consciousness means, because the word is so horribly abused by philosophy and science.

Defining a term is not creating a theory.

Gee

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Greylorn Ell » Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:43 am

iEvoke wrote:Paul said, "To be the word consciousness means alive."

When speaking on the topic about the nature of consciousness, there's always problems.

I personally think that consciousness exists outside our body in various forms. I only think that consciousness has been limited by teachings and social institutions. I think that people have been made to fear altered states and so on. Now, the problem to answer this question firstly is. 1) We know there is a mind but we yet haven't even began to explore it. 2) We know about the mind but we don't know where it is.
'What you mean, "We," Kemosaby? Oh! You've not read my book, have you?
Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Greylorn Ell » Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:49 am

Ginkgo wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:
You've defined what it means to be close-minded. Welcome to the QM priesthood.

Greylorn

Thank-you. Tomorrow I get to wear robes and a funny hat.
You do not need to wait until tomorrow. Seize the moment!

Would you like to rent one of my hats?

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Greylorn Ell » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:30 am

Gee wrote:Greylorn;

My responses to you and Ginkgo will be brief because I am tired and having a bad week. Please consider:
Greylorn Ell wrote:Beginning at age 12 I have had randomly scattered psychic experiences, beginning with telepathy, at which I'm a good transmitter. I'd studied dozens of books on the subject, including the occult, and found that every kind of psychic phenomena fit nicely into the early version of Beon Theory, except precognition. I could not envision a mechanism for it, so decided that it was impossible despite plenty of reports in the literature.
This makes sense, as most people, who have random experiences start to have them at puberty, or when hormones in the body change. People who have consistent psychic experiences, such as aura readers, seem to have the experiences from early childhood along with their first memories. I suspect these people have a 'hard-wired' type of psychic brain, that is not dependent upon chemical changes for the experience.
Gee,
I'm falling back in love with your mind. Thanks for an excellent post.

I was not aware of the distinction between those who have random psychic experiences, like myself, and those whose experiences are consistent. E.g: my oldest daughter, who claimed to have such experiences from preconsciousness but neglected to share this information with me until in her 20s. Had I trusted her prediction that the Packers would win the 1996 Superbowl, which she made at the start of the season, and driven to Vegas to make a long-odds $10K bet, I'd be rich today. She's been making a living as a psychic healer for quite a while.

I've not encountered this information before and would appreciate a reference. Not because I'm skeptical, but because it is information that I would like to reference in future communications with skeptical others.
Gee wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:Then three days before the Apollo 13 launch I awakened at 5am amid an unusual dream...
1. 1 minute or so into the launch, the central engine inexplicably shut down. Etc...
while the astronauts were on their way to the moon, I learned of the explosion and instantly was required to accept that precognitions were a fact. How I wish I'd shared my dream with the skeptical professors and engineers with whom I worked at the time!
I don't doubt that this happened, but unfortunately other people will. They will say that a dream state is unreliable and non reproducible so it is not valid. It is very difficult to try to get people to give up their biases in order to see something for what it is.
Tell me more about that, for I've never experienced such a thing. :? :wink:
Gee wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:SR predicts that matter cannot exceed the speed of light, because an infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate matter to "c." However, the theorist hypothesized that "information" might not be similarly limited, and did the math on what would happen to information transmitted faster than "c." It would move backward in time, and thus into into the future!

I was surprised that Science, a journal for the hard science community, published this paper, because the fastest way we have to transmit information is via electromagnetic signals, which move only at "c," light-speed. There is no way to transmit information faster, according to conventional physics.

This is all very interesting, but not something that I can understand. Not a scientist.
You only need a good mind to understand this stuff. A B.S. degree in some bullshit science would only get in your way. A Ph.D would render you incapable of imaginative thought. Why hide your mind beneath the bushel, keeping it safe like the servant in the Parable of the Talents? That your mind is confused, as are the minds of others, by the garbage learned in the process of living in a confused society, is a common experience above which you can rise. The garbage was allegedly a pathway to higher understanding, but in practice was an impediment. You've overcome more of it than most thinkers.

The difference between scientists/technologists and non-whatevers is largely a matter of reading skills. Most people seem to think that one read should be enough for them to grasp a concept. That works if you are reading a newspaper, promotional blurb for some product, or People magazine. It is insufficient for reading serious material, such as a physics or microbiology textbook. I found that after 3-4 reads, I could just begin to get a sense of what a particular chapter was about, and was ready to try my hand at the post-chapter exercises.

Non-scientists stop after a read in which they come away realizing that they did not understand an effing word, much less a concept. The difference between them and those who genuinely seek understanding is that the latter will reread, re-think, and continue until the understanding arrives.

Often, understanding is a matter of presentation, and emotion. I once had a girlfriend who was going through realtor school, stymied by her frustration with the math components. We talked. I learned that she had been bullied and intimidated by a nitwit Algebra I teacher. Yet, the key to her course difficulties was algebra. So I taught her algebra using English instead of algebraic terminology, without telling her that she was learning algebra. She got top score on the "mathematics" part of her course's final exam.

You have chosen to limit yourself by your "not a scientist" statement. Don't do that. You do not need to be a "scientist" to understand these concepts. All you need is a good mind. Do not deny the excellence of your mind.

This is true for others on this forum. Your brain may have been filled from the top of the hypothalamus to the base of the pineal gland with horseshit, but you are not your brain. You can evaluate the crap and think for yourself.
Gee wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:I recommend more research on your part before opening a "supernatural" thread. Dean Radin is a fairly good start, but his chapters should be interspersed with repeated viewings of Rupert Sheldrake's Youtube videos.

I don't agree. I do not need to know everything to start a thread on the supernatural, I only need to share what I think and know, then learn from other people. This post that you wrote and I am quoting would be an asset to a thread on the supernatural -- and valued input. The point is to share information.
You are correct. You only need to be slightly smarter than a bag of hammers to start a thread on the supernatural, or anything else. But somehow I got the notion that you would want to start a quality thread, and lead it from a combination of informed knowledge and personal experience.
Gee wrote:The problem that I am having is with energy. I can only type one or two posts per day, and that is on a good day, so I am not sure that I could properly respond to and maintain a new thread.
Prior to the onset of 'Lou Gherig's' disease, Steven Hawking was an ordinarily bright physics student, more interested in rowing boats on the Thames river and getting laid than in Black Hole theory. His illness gave him the choice to focus upon his physical deficiencies or his mental potential.

His choice to focus upon his potential, in the context of physical limitations, forced him to be extremely conscientious about the small amount of information that he could physically deal with. For what its worth, DUAS was written during a period of extreme pain in which I walked with a crutch or a stick and ingested a considerable amount of ethanol by way of pain killer (thus accounting for the negative attitudes and political incorrectness in the book). My ideas are out there ugly, but at least they are out there.
Gee wrote:I watched some of Sheldrake's videos. He is an interesting man.
Yes, but it is his ideas, his thoughts that make him interesting. Once they are presented, does it matter if Sheldrake himself is interesting?

The difference between you and I is that you put emotions at the core of everything. I put ideas at the core. Sheldrake makes a good presentation of some excellent and intriguing ideas. You find the man/presentation interesting. And he is, if only because he has the mind and the balls to speak out as he does. My interest is in his ideas.

Can you describe any of the core concepts that Sheldrake presents? (Without first reviewing his videos?) Do you have a sense of what he means by a "morphogenetic field?" Or are you more concerned with his style of presentation (I'd kill for it), how he dresses, or how he looks? Are emotions, feelings, presentations, etc. more important to you than quality of thought? Seems like.
Gee wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:Why isn't all information from the future transmitted back to the past? It is, but there is a lot of it, and none of it is focused. Obtaining a specific complex pattern of information would be like taking a photograph with a camera that had no lens.

So, what might focus the simultaneous transmission of specific information, ideally from multiple sources at the same moment? You are allowed one and only one guess.
Bonds entangle minds and information, and they work through emotion. If you want to call that Beon, then you can, but I can't.
You blew what I figured would be a no-brainer, for you. Over-thinking, the trademark of the professor that you seem not to want to be, and probably will become, next lifetime. Regrettably. The answer is simply, emotion.

I am delighted that you do not call an entanglement of minds and information "beon," because I sure as hell do not.
Gee wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:First you profess not to have a theory of consciousness, then make some statements about the nature of consciousness, that, although confused, represent a serious, faulty, and trivial theory of consciousness.
I do not yet have a theory on consciousness. The statements that you noted were not a theory, they were the terms that I used to define the word, 'consciousness'. I worked hard to determine what basic simple consciousness means, because the word is so horribly abused by philosophy and science.

Defining a term is not creating a theory.

Gee
IMO you've written enough about your opinions of the nature of consciousness to have created a theory about it, nevermind that the theory is as inconsistent and as poorly defined as Darwinism or Christianity. I acknowledge that you've not formalized your opinions as a theory, and that's a good thing, because they pretty much suck.

You are clear about the importance of emotions to consciousness, etc., and lots of other stuff which any biographer could encompass as a theory-- one of better quality that most of the belief systems that millions of human beings use to guide their life choices.

I invite you to get your act together, in whatever manner you can manage, and assemble your ideas, opinions, and beliefs into a coherent theory. Get them together, and present them in public. The worst that can happen is that the geniuses on this forum show you that your opinions are mistaken. This is also the best that can happen, for it opens one of two mental spaces, wherein you:

1. Show that your ideas are valid.

2. Abandon your ideas and devise better ones.

What have you to lose?

Greylorn

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest