Mod+ 260. MIAMI ATTORNEY REY HERNANDEZ SUPPORTS UFO CONTACTEES

#3
I tend to think that attempting to explain consciousness via the holographic paradigm or through physics is not the right approach. In my opinion consciousness is not part of the physical universe. This belief is based on the evidence from cosmology that the universe, space and time, was designed and created by an intelligence outside the universe. If consciousness exists independently of the physical universe of space and time, then it cannot be explained by physics. Consciousness is not limited by time and distance but seems to be something that is fundamental and irreducible that cannot be explained in terms of other simpler phenomenon. Even if the physical universe is best described by the mathematical equations of a hologram, that does not mean consciousness is part of that hologram, it may only mean that consciousness is capable of perceiving the hologram.

As for research that should be conducted, I would just suggest that FREE include mediumship and other forms of afterlife research as part of their area of investigation. Also, many people who develop psychic abilities need support as much as UFO and NDE experiencers and all forms of psychic experiences could be included in FREE's investigations.

I completely agree that the UFO phenomenon and afterlife phenomenon are related. The UFO literature is sprinkled with hints that there is some project being conducted by ETs and the souls of the dead. This is what originally got me interested in spirituality.
 
Last edited:
#4
I tend to think the attempts of trying to explain consciousness via the holographic paradigm or through physics is not the right approach. In my opinion consciousness is not part of the physical universe. This belief is based on the evidence from cosmology that the universe, space and time, was designed and created by an intelligence outside the universe. If consciousness exists independently of the physical universe of space and time, then it cannot be explained by physics. Consciousness seems to be something that is fundamental and irreducible, that cannot be explained in terms of other simpler phenomenon and is not limited by time and distance. Even if the physical universe is best be described by the mathematical equations of a hologram, that does not mean consciousness is part of that hologram, it may only mean that consciousness is capable of perceiving the hologram.
great stuff. I've felt the same, but wasn't able to articulate it this well.
 
#5
Alex's questions at the end of the podcast:

What do you think is the most important research that needs to be done in order to get to the bottom of the experiencer phenomenon?

Do we need more broad surveys of how many people have had thes kinds of experiences and what they involve? More detailed analysis of particular experiences leading to a greater understanding of those?

How should Ray's group go about doing this research? Useful and creative ideas welcome.
 
#6
Maybe consciousness via the holographic paradigm is explained better in the papers on the website http://experiencer.co/. There are certainly lots of papers by physicists there. I am a physicist and also keen on explaining all the wonderful range of conscious states that Rey talked about, so I wonder very much how the FREE physicists have got around the problem that the smallness of Planck's constant make specifically-quantum processes difficult on any large scale.

On the website http://www.newdualism.org/quantum.htm I argue thus:
Quantum Physics may be indeterministic about the detailed choices between differerent outcomes for some classes of microscopic events, namely decoherent measurements, but it is not completely arbitary. Rather, it makes very precise predictions for the probabilities of those outcomes, and, furthermore, the evolution of these probability distributions is completely deterministic.

Either dualist [psychic] input influences the choice of when decohering measurements occur (as Stapp suggests), or it changes the probabilities of different outcomes (as Saunders et al also consider). In the first case, the range of influence is extremely limited, and hardly plausible in a dualist theory. In the second case, the dualist input change the probability rules of quantum physics, in just the same way as dualist input would have to change Newton's laws of motion if it were to influence classical systems.

We conclude therefore, with Saunders and Brecha, that it is very doubtful that any dualist or divine input into the operation of the natural world proceeds by exploiting the small residual indeterminism of quantum physics. Dualist control in quantum physics is no easier than in classical physics. That is, any influence of a dual degree must affect those properties of objects that are also measured by physics.

The challenge, therefore, is to find a coherent theory which explains what, how, when and why those physical properties are changed.
If the claims made by today's speaker have any content, then these problems will be resolved.

I will report later, after reading!
 
#7
Maybe consciousness via the holographic paradigm is explained better in the papers on the website http://experiencer.co/. There are certainly lots of papers by physicists there. I am a physicist and also keen on explaining all the wonderful range of conscious states that Rey talked about, so I wonder very much how the FREE physicists have got around the problem that the smallness of Planck's constant make specifically-quantum processes difficult on any large scale.


If the claims made by today's speaker have any content, then these problems will be resolved.

I will report later, after reading!
Some of the papers on the website are jokes when it comes to describing the actual claims about physics.

See for example, Rudy Schild's paper "Modern Miracles and The Quantum Hologram". He might be physicist (see here), but his explanations are jokes. Worse: non-existent. I am looking for an explanation of what actually is the "quantum hologram" they all talk about (Mitchell, Lewells, Schild). I see Schild's paper has a last subsection entitled 3. What, exactly, is the Quantum Hologram? At last an explanation, I thought! But no! He waffles on about dark energy, imaginary parts to dimensions, and UFOs. But he never mentions 'holograms' again! Does he even know? Apparently not! How sad.

Mitchell, in Nature's Mind: The Quantum Hologram (p. 3), keeps on talking about the "discovery of the quantum hologram", but his main reference is to very preliminary work in 1991 by Schemp (pages 383-467 of this book) who has some wave analyses which might be applied to quantum theory, but all of whose demonstrations involve entirely classical wave motions. He has much speculation, almost as much as Peter Marcer's weird speculations in the 1990s when I knew Peter. Mitchell says (p. 11) that "Quantum Holography (QH), which we have alluded to several times above, is a recently discovered attribute of all physical matter and has been validated by experimental work with functional magnetic resonating imaging (fMRI). In his work with MRI tomography, Schempp (1999) used a mathematical formalism to expand quantum information theory." There is no evidence given for quantum holograms actually being physical. This makes me think he does not show any idea of whether a quantum hologram can actually exist in present-day experiments, or even what one actually is should it exist (I hope I am wrong here).

Swanson seems to think that if all physical processes are coherently synchronized, then that is sufficient so that consciousness 'can interact across parallel dimensions' (p.38).

I wonder if these 'quantum holograms' are really what the aliens had in mind when they told Rey about quantum mechanics being a connection between all the kinds of parapsychological and paraphysical processes!

(more later)
 
Last edited:
#8
The real trick is explaining how objective physical phenomena can produce subjective experience. How does physics explain why the color red looks red? How can physics help a color blind person understand what red looks like? Consciousness seems to be fundamentally different from any physical phenomenon. Physics might tell you how consciousness interacts with the physical world, but I don't think it is going to explain consciousness.


http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/08/consciousness-cannot-be-emergent.html
Subjective experience which cannot be measured objectively cannot be the product of fundamentally different objective measurable phenomena such as neuronal activity in the brain. If you study a lump of brain cells, neither the laws of physics nor any biochemical reactions can explain why subjective experiences feel the way they do. Subjective experiences are known only in terms of subjective experience, not in terms of mathematics, or molecular models, or physics, or chemistry, or biology, or psychology, or sociology. Red looks red. Physics can tell you what wavelengths of light look red, and chemistry can tell you how light is sensed by the retina, and neurology can tell you how the signals from the optic nerve are processed by the brain, but none of that will ever tell a colorblind person what red looks like. Consciousness and physical processes are fundamentally different things.

Thinking you will be able to explain how consciousness emerges by understanding more about a massive number of nerve cells is like trying to make a ham sandwich from bricks. You can't make a ham sandwich from bricks and piling up more and more bricks will never get you any closer to having a ham sandwich.
more:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-materialist-explanation-of.html
 
#9
The real trick is explaining how objective physical phenomena can produce subjective experience. How does physics explain why the color red looks red? How can physics help a color blind person understand what red looks like? Consciousness seems to be fundamentally different from any physical phenomenon. Physics might tell you how consciousness interacts with the physical world, but I don't think it is going to explain consciousness.
Exactly! All the talk of 'Quantum Holograms' and such like, seem to miss the point. If exotic physics can really explain the anomalous phenomena that people experience, then those phenomena would simply be part of a materialistic universe. However, I don't think this will happen - naive or sophisticated talk of quantum phenomena doesn't get round the problem of qualia.

David
 
#10
I have to say, I gave up on this podcast (at least for now) at about the half way point. I wish Alex had asked some more hard-headed questions. I really don't know what to make of his story, but I do think that some minds are more attuned to such phenomena than others (like mine) and that it doesn't really help to simply call this mental illness.

Indeed, maybe we could discover something interesting by studying what 'mental' patients do report.


Alex, I really do feel that if people start talking about QM, you should push them a bit (maybe giving them some advance warning), because I think vague talk of quantum-X is a real problem - it makes it really hard to take the rest of what someone says seriously. If QM is really going to be extended to encompass these phenomena (but see my previous comment), it is going to be by someone like Stapp or Penrose!

As I see it, the relationship between ψ and modern science is a very tough problem, and people who are into ψ should avoid explaining their discoveries in terms of physics, unless they are damn sure they know what they are talking about. Here is someone who might have some ideas on this subject:

http://physics.esotec.org/

David
 
#11
Exactly! All the talk of 'Quantum Holograms' and such like, seem to miss the point. If exotic physics can really explain the anomalous phenomena that people experience, then those phenomena would simply be part of a materialistic universe. However, I don't think this will happen - naive or sophisticated talk of quantum phenomena doesn't get round the problem of qualia.

David
Maybe the aliens communicating with Hernandez are part of a galactic CSICOP group, spreading materialist propaganda in all universe. :D

Seriously, loved the interview but when I was listening to the most staggering accounts I thought... this doesn't sound it happened on the physical plane. I mean an UFO the size of a football field with tons of lights hovering 5 feet above his house roof? People would have called the police and run in the streets looking at the damn thing, many would have taken a picture or video... hey it was 2012, everyone had their smartphone in their pocket.

I bet 2 cents that if someone shot a video he didn't get anything.

It sounds as if these experiences are projected. Hernandez is attacked by a swarm of mosquitos but apparently no other people saw any? Weird.
Does anybody know if the 2nd 2012 sighting was reported on TV or local newspapers?

Many accounts of contact and abduction are often in precarious balance between consensus reality and something else, call it astral projection, or projected reality, mind control. Indeed the latter phenomena is a bit creepy. The more I read of these encounters the more I realize that abducted people's minds are used at the will of whatever is communicating... not a reassuring element that someone can play with our thoughts without even asking permission.

I believe this aspect of "mind control" and projected reality is very common... first thing that comes to mind are the various contacts described by Whitely Strieber, but there's many more, I just forget the names.
 
Last edited:
#12
I have to say, I gave up on this podcast (at least for now) at about the half way point. I wish Alex had asked some more hard-headed questions. I really don't know what to make of his story, but I do think that some minds are more attuned to such phenomena than others (like mine) and that it doesn't really help to simply call this mental illness.
Indeed, maybe we could discover something interesting by studying what 'mental' patients do report.

Alex, I really do feel that if people start talking about QM, you should push them a bit (maybe giving them some advance warning), because I think vague talk of quantum-X is a real problem - it makes it really hard to take the rest of what someone says seriously. If QM is really going to be extended to encompass these phenomena (but see my previous comment), it is going to be by someone like Stapp or Penrose!

As I see it, the relationship between ψ and modern science is a very tough problem, and people who are into ψ should avoid explaining their discoveries in terms of physics, unless they are damn sure they know what they are talking about. Here is someone who might have some ideas on this subject:

http://physics.esotec.org/

David
I very much agree. I would have loved to know the details of this relationship with QM and consciousness.

However, since you stopped halfway through I'd suggest to go the extra mile and finish to listen. He mentions several resources that might be interesting such as the papers by Edgar Mitchell on quantum holograms. I think it's worth taking a look.

When I have time I'll go check the material on Hernandez's site.
 
#13
I tend to think that attempting to explain consciousness via the holographic paradigm or through physics is not the right approach. In my opinion consciousness is not part of the physical universe. .
I think (hope?) you mean that consciousness is not generated by the physical. It is most certainly part of it. Or to be more accurate - the myriad physical universes are aspects ( sets of expressions/manifestations) of consciousness.
 
#14
I think (hope?) you mean that consciousness is not generated by the physical. It is most certainly part of it. Or to be more accurate - the myriad physical universes are aspects ( sets of expressions/manifestations) of consciousness.
What would everyone think of the scheme where: the physical is generated by consciousness?
That is not the physical being an aspect of consciousness, but the actual physics coming into material being because of spiritual and mental causes.
Can anyone think of any systematic objections to such a scheme?
 
#15
What would everyone think of the scheme where: the physical is generated by consciousness?
That is not the physical being an aspect of consciousness, but the actual physics coming into material being because of spiritual and mental causes.
Can anyone think of any systematic objections to such a scheme?
That physical and non physical are actually labels and there is no such thing as physical or non physical, it's just a gradient. The illusion of separation may simply stem from our limited awareness and senses. E.g. take a good dose of shrooms and suddenly you can perceive a whole new slice of that "reality gradient", for lack of better word? :eek:

But I am rambling. You asked for an objection, mine is just nit picking. And I have high fever so I might very well not know what the heck I am talking about. :D

Anyways the model you describe seems akin to the one mutuated by Theosophist, Steiner's Antroposophy and other mystery schools... (mostly derived from Indian philosophy and mysticism? but not only probably, especially in Steiner)
 
#16
I agree with the general feeling that the approach shouldn't at the outset cramp its own style by focussing on trying to explain the constellation of NDE/UFO/psi phenomena in terms of physics. The fact remains that the only thing any of us can know exists is consciousness.

I found the interview with Rey fascinating and enjoyable, and I'm inclined to believe that he's had the experiences he claims, but I do wonder if, given his previous "rationalistic" leanings, he isn't seeking explanations that can jibe with a "scientific" worldview. As soon as one hears talk of QM and quantum holograms, I think it can make people on both sides of the fence wary.

I can imagine materialists' eyes will start rolling when explanations like that are mooted, and as for a non-materialists like me, consciousness has primacy: if anything, we should be explaining physics in terms of that, rather than the other way around. The value of QM in this regard is that right from the beginning, with the double-slit experiment, the idea was raised in the minds of some of our greatest physicists that maybe we had to factor consciousness into physics, perhaps even consider the possibility that it was primal. There's nothing like repeatable experiments that can't be explained in purely materialistic terms for challenging the materialistic paradigm.

Right at the heart of physics, then, is a conundrum that can't be satisfactorily explained from the materialist perspective. That won't stop some from continuing to seek such explanations, and I don't suppose it should do so: you never know, maybe they'll eventually succeed, even though I very much doubt that. If in the end they do, then I suppose I'll have to change my mind. Meanwhile, it seems that the most parsimonious explanation begins with the hypothesis of the primacy of consciousness and the ultimate lack of "solidity" in the universe: the more we investigate, the more nebulous "things" seem to become, and the more concrete such notions as ideas and intentions and their effects in the conscious mind.

What we need, I suppose, is a kind of "physics of consciousness"; but I'd argue that such has existed for millennia in spiritual tradition, and that that, for cognoscenti, is as rigorous a discipline as orthodox physics ever was or will be. However, it's is based on the only thing we truly know exists, viz. consciousness, rather than a conceptual schema like physics (however useful it might be) which I think of as a second-order product of consciousness.

All our conventional disciplines are ways of trying to order or make sense out of what appear to be repeating phenomena occurring within universal consciousness. I suppose the development of language could be viewed as the first highly-organised step in trying to make the universe intelligible to human minds. Merely naming things and events allowed us to begin constructing a description of reality seemingly in accord with that which we were able to perceive.

Physics is perhaps, essentially, just an extension of that: it's something immensely useful, and doubtless satisfying to minds that ceaselessly seek understanding because that's what minds do: but in the end, in my view it's just a model of reality and not reality itself. Reality itself is that which can be experienced through consciousness unalloyed with second-order concepts. For millennia, we've had the "technology" to do that, as evidenced in the central core common to many spiritual traditions.

So in a sense, maybe we already have the "physics" we need; it's just that not many can comprehend and apply it yet. Going off to create explanations in terms of second-order concepts like QM and quantum holograms could be regarded as a diversion. If only science would honour the primacy of consciousness, a discipline like orthodox physics could come to be regarded as a practically useful tool rather than a universally applicable explanatory framework.

IMO, physics, and other scientific disciplines, are in the realm of description and manipulation rather than ontology. This idea is actually paid lip-service to in the scientific method, where it's granted that we make hypotheses that we can test and perhaps elevate to the status of established theory or even law. However, though we're cautioned never to think we have the final, definitive answer, in practice, at any given stage in history, that's what we tend to try to do. Luckily we haven't yet become so rigid that new concepts and ways of applying them aren't continually arising; though of late I'd say the way the scientific establishment has evolved, it's unwittingly doing its damnedest to induce stasis.
 
Last edited:
#17
What would everyone think of the scheme where: the physical is generated by consciousness?
That is not the physical being an aspect of consciousness, but the actual physics coming into material being because of spiritual and mental causes.
Can anyone think of any systematic objections to such a scheme?
I think this idea has a lot of merit. It would explain why natural laws are simple, intelligible, mathematical relationships and why physical constants are fine-tuned to precisely those values needed for the universe to support life: because a mind conceived or is conceiving them. Mathematics can describe nature because nature is conceived by a mind, but this also makes it dubious that consciousness itself can be described by mathematical relationships (ie physics will not explain consciouses).
 
Last edited:
#18
What would everyone think of the scheme where: the physical is generated by consciousness?
That is not the physical being an aspect of consciousness, but the actual physics coming into material being because of spiritual and mental causes.
Can anyone think of any systematic objections to such a scheme?
This is Idealism, and I agree it is probably the ultimate explanation of reality. However, I am not sure it is viable to jump there in one go - that would be as if Newton had come up with General Relativity! It would have been atrociously hard for people to use to explain the solar system, because they might not even realise that the theory reduces to the inverse square law in the right conditions. I get the feeling that science has to progress in manageable steps, and I think dualism (with some unspecified interaction between the two realms) is a good temporary view of reality. Subsequently, there is nothing to prevent a move to a theory where the material realm is also generated by the mental realm - and the interaction then becomes obvious.

Bernardo argues for Idealism, but IMHO that makes his arguments rather vague and full of metaphors.

David
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#19
What would everyone think of the scheme where: the physical is generated by consciousness?
That is not the physical being an aspect of consciousness, but the actual physics coming into material being because of spiritual and mental causes.
Can anyone think of any systematic objections to such a scheme?
So something not-mind comes to being because of mind? Do you mean something akin to the Scholastic position that God is pure actuality creating a world that has actual things with potential to be other things?
 
#20
What would everyone think of the scheme where: the physical is generated by consciousness?
That is not the physical being an aspect of consciousness, but the actual physics coming into material being because of spiritual and mental causes.
Can anyone think of any systematic objections to such a scheme?
What I stated is the same as what you're responding with - "the physical is generated by consciousness." I have been stating that since my first week on this forum. It is fundamental!

Given that linear time is a part of those physicals (there are myriad), means those physicals are an aspect of consciousness. There is no "coming into being" as they always are in being.
 
Top