Mod+ 260. MIAMI ATTORNEY REY HERNANDEZ SUPPORTS UFO CONTACTEES

I would love to follow a thread titled "what minds actually are!". I suggest there will be lively opinions at Skeptiko.

Stapp does well when he referenced A. N. Whitehead in some of his papers.

In the story where there is blind but tactile observation of an elephant, no one speaks of the elephant's point of view. When addressing theories of mind, Whitehead's treatment of its ontologies, is always tantalizing. I suggest that the elephant (a reification of mentality in this case ) was made the most uncomfortable by the intimate gropings of Whitehead. When I read him - it seems he always has something almost in hand.

Here is Stapp gleaning ideas from Whitehead
The story about Whitehead is that he lost his son Eric very late in WWI, and wanted to know whether he survived death. So part of his philosophical theory after the war was to see if he could make a view that was compatible with physics, but still allowed some kind of postmortem survival.

In fact, the theory he ended up with only allowed the most meagre influence of mind (or God!) on nature. Since all 'actual entities' are physical, they are not really enough for survival at all. And when he talks about potentiality (which, if like 'power' might give us an idea about minds) he means 'merely potential', which is essential equivalent to 'merely possible'. Even in his physics, he does not have any idea about active powers or potentials.

Yet, the mere fact that Whitehead had a theory that integrated mind and nature (however inadequate it may be) is enough to make people like Henry Stapp and Ken Wilber look back to him when they try to begin to make theories that connect mind and nature, and would otherwise be stuck completely.
 
The story about Whitehead is that he lost his son Eric very late in WWI, and wanted to know whether he survived death. So part of his philosophical theory after the war was to see if he could make a view that was compatible with physics, but still allowed some kind of postmortem survival.

In fact, the theory he ended up with only allowed the most meagre influence of mind (or God!) on nature. Since all 'actual entities' are physical, they are not really enough for survival at all. And when he talks about potentiality (which, if like 'power' might give us an idea about minds) he means 'merely potential', which is essential equivalent to 'merely possible'. Even in his physics, he does not have any idea about active powers or potentials.

Yet, the mere fact that Whitehead had a theory that integrated mind and nature (however inadequate it may be) is enough to make people like Henry Stapp and Ken Wilber look back to him when they try to begin to make theories that connect mind and nature, and would otherwise be stuck completely.
Whitehead's 'actual occasions' tried to capture more of reality than just the physical. Whether they do is not clear. Like monads, they are an interesting artifact of looking for wholeness in minds and bodies.

Where Whitehead does take a stab at a process model, I find a conceptualization that fits my personal worldview. At the end of his Modes of Thought, he takes his big stab at how mind "works".
The qualities entertained as objects in conceptual activity are of the nature of catalytic agents, in the sense in which that phrase is used in chemistry. They modify the aesthetic process by which the occasion constitutes itself out of the many streams of feeling received from the past .
(my emphasis in bold)
 
About Burns: I have been reading her works, and making a list of them at http://www.newdualism.org/papers/J.Burns/Burns-Pubs.html (copying from http://www.mindspring.com/~l.o.v.e.r/Burns-Pubs.html, and putting in some missing papers). I have 4 more recent publications that I should add to the list: will do that later today.

When I read this stuff (by Burns or Stapp or others), I am always disappointed that they say they want a theory of how minds interact with physics (eg in measurement), but they have no idea what minds actually are! They know the physics side, but the existence and psychology of minds is completely obscure to them.[/quot

You may not hear from me for awhile. I'm going through your attachment, Thanks. So far Burns topics were touched upon in her Skeptiko podcast.
 
About Burns: I have been reading her works, and making a list of them at http://www.newdualism.org/papers/J.Burns/Burns-Pubs.html (copying from http://www.mindspring.com/~l.o.v.e.r/Burns-Pubs.html, and putting in some missing papers). I have 4 more recent publications that I should add to the list: will do that later today.

When I read this stuff (by Burns or Stapp or others), I am always disappointed that they say they want a theory of how minds interact with physics (eg in measurement), but they have no idea what minds actually are! They know the physics side, but the existence and psychology of minds is completely obscure to them.
I have put together all the Burns papers I can find at http://www.newdualism.org/papers/J.Burns/Burns-Pubs.html
 

I'm afraid it will be a long time till someone is able to empirically provide an unified expression of how brain does not equal mind. Physics has only begun to understand this material universe, let alone comprehending other dimensions, which I believe mind/consciousness is connected. I enjoy the way Dr. Burns approaches the topic with such a rational essay. I especially enjoyed this treatise. http://www.newdualism.org/papers/J.Burns/Burns-07.pdf
There are the anecdoltal testimonies of thousands of NDEers who propose there is some aspect of the mind which is non-material and can retain memories of self as an identity well after the brain has ceased to function. I am also intrigued with the phenomenon of Tony Parsons, A person who claims he has lost his identity or sense of a self. What are we seeing in such a person? A psychological term for it would be some sort of dissociative personality disorder, where the result is a detachment to reality. In Tony's case. The opposite result occurs. Instead there is a sharpening sense of the immediate reality. Tony appears to be totally in command of his psychological state. Would this be a living example of a holistic relationship of mind intergrated and in command of the brains response to experience. What is happening here?
http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/videos/tony-parsons-the-open-secret-perception/
 
There are the anecdotal testimonies of thousands of NDEers who propose there is some aspect of the mind which is non-material and can retain memories of self as an identity well after the brain has ceased to function.
Just my personal opinion here. You managed to use two of my most unfavourite words here. 'Anecdote' is often used as a pejorative term, in order to dismiss evidence. 'Testimony' is often a label attached to NDE accounts which are being used as marketing propaganda for some Christian group. Each of these words feels tainted by such associations, and personally I try to avoid them.

As to NDEers themselves proposing an explanation, it's true that some do, but others simply tell what happened but don't have any explanation. An example I came across recently was the story of the musician Tony Kofi who didn't offer any explanation other than 'adrenaline', but was clearly transformed by his experience.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
I finally got back to this podcast and made it through. I agree very much that Rey is to be admired for coming forward with his strange experiences, like he's done.

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.
Amico Bucky, Felice Anno Nuovo. :)

I just wanted to say I'm not as convinced of what you're saying here. I figure a UFO that size could be over my house right now and I wouldn't have a clue about it (unless it was tremendously loud). Not long ago, a car crashed right nto my front neighbor's house and I didn't hear anything.

That being said, I don't know if that UFO (or whatever it was) was physical, astral, etc. I'm intrigued by the idea of projection but I can see all of these theories as possibilities, which may "explain" (describe) one encounter (or part of it) and not another. For instance, there could actually be "beings" present, who made something visible to Rey and a few others only, and without it being in the "astral" (whatever that is). When you hear and read of these accounts, it sounds like all our reality-defining categories melt away...
 
Amico Bucky, Felice Anno Nuovo. :)
Hehe, felice anno nuovo anche a, te Ian :)

I just wanted to say I'm not as convinced of what you're saying here. I figure a UFO that size could be over my house right now and I wouldn't have a clue about it (unless it was tremendously loud). Not long ago, a car crashed right nto my front neighbor's house and I didn't hear anything.
True. It really depends on the neighborhood, if it's densely populated or not. It's been a while since I wrote the post and I had more clear the details of that particular instance.
If I recall it didn't happen at particularly ungodly hours ... if it happened during the day it would have obscured the whole sky, but I seem to recall that it happened at night with lots of visible lights and such, and I would have expected that it might have attracted more attention.

I don't remember mentions about sounds, noises... I wish Alex had asked more questions about that particular sighting.

Nonetheless football field sized UFOs have ben spotted in other occasions by innumerable observers ... "Phoenix light"? (IIRC) ... So yeah, it's a tricky business. :D
 
Top