Matt Lambeau, Tree of Self-Evident Truth |546|

[Alex]

In Radin's experiments on presentiment, the impulses indicating the presentiment emanate from the subject and are measured by various devices.

not sure we can say this. I've never heard radin say anything like this.

To me the word "supernatural" it's an oxymoron, useful only in describing a genre of fiction.

I only brought it up because it was in the definition of naturalism that you cited.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

not sure we can say this. I've never heard radin say anything like this.
I only brought it up because it was in the definition of naturalism that you cited.

The papers that I linked to the other day describe the setup Radin used as well as the statistical modeling.

QUOTE: "Physiological data (skin conductance, heart rate, respiration rate, EEG activity, etc.) are recorded continuously during the experiment. Each trial may be assessed on a trial-by-trial basis, but more typically Tpre is evaluated by averaging it across multiple trials of similar types e.g., emotional vs. neutral in the series."

The assumption is that the results indicate some transference of information prior to the subject becoming aware of it. However that is not what is actually being measured. The actual readings are coming from the subject. The assumption that it represents awareness or detection of a specific future event is hypothetical. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Either way, it's a physical measurement that in no way breaks the principles of naturalism.

If anything, I'd say Radin is one of the few who are trying scientifically to prove that such phenomena are a part of nature.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Excellent question. I don't constrain my perspective to those two choices because it seems to me that the real state of affairs is larger than that. There are not only materials and thoughts, but also time, space, and the fundamental forces of nature. When looking at the situation this way, the question of dualism versus monism becomes a tool to focus our attention on the difference between the mental and all the rest. But we might just as easily focus our attention of the difference between EM and all the rest, or gravitation and all the rest.

So rather than looking at reality as monistic or dualistic, I look at it more holistically. In other words, I accept that there can be more than one type of thing and more than one type of phenomena and that they can all exist concurrently within the larger construct — and there seems to be pretty good evidence that such is actually the case.

I would agree — sort of. Instead of saying that idealism allows us to eliminate the hard problem, I'd say it eliminates the easy problem and leaves us only with the hard problem — why should there be any experience of anything?

I'm pretty sure the above covers it reasonably well. Thanks for taking an interest. Very good conversation !

You know, I suspect you're actually trying to be a sceptic in the truest sense rather than a physical monist or dualist. Look at this you said:

The assumption is that the results indicate some transference of information prior to the subject becoming aware of it. However that is not what is actually being measured. The actual readings are coming from the subject. The assumption that it represents awareness or detection of a specific future event is hypothetical. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Either way, it's a physical measurement that in no way breaks the principles of naturalism.

I agree with this. The idea about information being transferred is a postulate. I think you're right, that what is being measured comes from the subject. Radin is trying to fit the interpretation into his model of the world. Which, of course, says nothing about whether he's right or wrong.

I also agree that everything that actually happens is natural. If anything, I get the sense that you are more of a "natural" monist than a physical one. Also, that science is the exploration of everything that is natural. It's just unfortunate that language imposes conceptions and labels certain things "supernatural". But I think you are right: there is no such thing as that. If anything actually happens, it is quite natural whatever terms we might apply to phenomena. Nothing that doesn't actually happen is real; there's no such thing as anything outside nature.

But what is "nature"? That's the 64,000 dollar question. For me, it's consciousness, which manifests to us in the perception of the physical in all its seeming diversity, as well as internally experienced qualia. Bernardo Kastrup posits that living beings are dissociated alters of universal consciousness, but that's only a metaphor that helps us get a better handle on what might be going on, using language, which is something we usually have to use to communicate.

Donald Hoffman uses the metaphor for our perception of a computer desktop, which provides us via its icons with information that helps us survive, but doesn't present the actual truth of reality. Tom Campbell uses the metaphor of a virtual reality game. Rupert Spira also uses metaphor, and, as BK observed in the excellent video that Steve posted, he says things so appositely and economically that it's a wonder to behold.

As long as you strive for true scepticism, I think you'll remain open to a number of different interpretations of reality. For me at least, your position may be closer to Idealism than you think. I'm not talking about the metaphorical devices used to help convey it, but it's essence, which is ultimately beyond words.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

You know, I suspect you're actually trying to be a sceptic in the truest sense rather than a physical monist or dualist. Look at this you said:

I agree with this. The idea about information being transferred is a postulate. I think you're right, that what is being measured comes from the subject. Radin is trying to fit the interpretation into his model of the world. Which, of course, says nothing about whether he's right or wrong.

I also agree that everything that actually happens is natural. If anything, I get the sense that you are more of a "natural" monist than a physical one. Also, that science is the exploration of everything that is natural. It's just unfortunate that language imposes conceptions and labels certain things "supernatural". But I think you are right: there is no such thing as that. If anything actually happens, it is quite natural whatever terms we might apply to phenomena. Nothing that doesn't actually happen is real; there's no such thing as anything outside nature.

But what is "nature"? That's the 64,000 dollar question. For me, it's consciousness, which manifests to us in the perception of the physical in all its seeming diversity, as well as internally experienced qualia. Bernardo Kastrup posits that living beings are dissociated alters of universal consciousness, but that's only a metaphor that helps us get a better handle on what might be going on, using language, which is something we usually have to use to communicate.

Donald Hoffman uses the metaphor for our perception of a computer desktop, which provides us via its icons with information that helps us survive, but doesn't present the actual truth of reality. Tom Campbell uses the metaphor of a virtual reality game. Rupert Spira also uses metaphor, and, as BK observed in the excellent video that Steve posted, he says things so appositely and economically that it's a wonder to behold.

As long as you strive for true scepticism, I think you'll remain open to a number of different interpretations of reality. For me at least, your position may be closer to Idealism than you think. I'm not talking about the metaphorical devices used to help convey it, but it's essence, which is ultimately beyond words.

Excellent commentary. Thank you. It's this sort of filtering of the issues that moves the discussion forward. Returning to the question of nature, I completely agree that consciousness is a phenomena of nature. So is gravitation. So is EM. So is space. So is time and whatever God or gods are floating about out there in whatever realm they inhabit. Nature is the big container for all of it.

It is synonymous with existence itself, and I don't think we're ever going to get to the bottom of that mystery. I tried for years, and always ran into the same problem as everyone else who has come before — infinite regress - turtles all the way down. The most interesting breakthrough was the realization that constructed universes are a possibility. We may never solve the biggest question, but if we are in a constructed sub-realm, that could open-up some extremely beneficial possibilities.

What amazes me is that we tiny little creatures on this pale blue dot have the capacity to have figured this much out. We've come a long ways since believing the world is flat and the stars are lanterns attached to a distant ceiling.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Fair enough.
So, yesterday while contemplating this exchange, I speculated on possible non-physical means of communication between the two realms (below). What I came up with is not original but I think you’ll get a kick out of it if you apply it from the other side of the looking glass:

• Synchronicity - An alteration of code leading to coincidence associated with a particular meaning.
• Glitch - An alteration of code which might not be measureable on the used end, but would be noticed as a felt lack of continuity.
• Mathematical - An alteration of of code leading a person to associate correlation between a mathematical pattern and a particular meaning.
• Good Law - Incentivized charity which feels benevolent even in the light of the possibility of existence being ultimately finite.

Thank you very much for indulging me and helping me verbalize this. I won’t impose one you any further for now.

In addition to the above, what would be your opinion on the possibility that dreams might represent some sort of link between realms? Try to picture this situation: As you're beginning to wake-up, suddenly you realize that you're lucid dreaming, but the dream is of you waking-up someplace else.

QUESTION: Which room will you see when you open your eyes?

 

[Robbedigital]

In addition to the above, what would be your opinion on the possibility that dreams might represent some sort of link between realms? Try to picture this situation: As you're beginning to wake-up, suddenly you realize that you're lucid dreaming, but the dream is of you waking-up someplace else.

QUESTION: Which room will you see when you open your eyes?

Assuming that by "someplace else" you mean somewhere fully non-local, I will answer with a simple metaphor.

You're playing Super Mario #1 on NES, and Mario disappears. He then skips right past our human-universe-realm and appears in universe composed of atoms of which your-and-my entire universe is one single individual atom. When the people Mario meets in this beyond realm ask him "Where did you come from?", he can't possibly explain what he travelled. Not only did he travel from 2d to 3d, but probably an additional dimension or two.

To answer your questions: When Mario appeared in the beyond realm he was not being animated by the NES machine on Earth. So, whatever experiences Mario brings back to the NES realm will have to be translated to NES in order to retain them or even experience them at all on NES.

The reason the metaphor skipped past our realm to a beyond realm (in case it annoyed you) was to provide the visualization without giving you the option to tether Mario's appearance in the beyond realm to any direct linear link of travel or translation (such as computer code translating to project onto a tv screen).

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Assuming that by "someplace else" you mean somewhere fully non-local, I will answer with a simple metaphor.

You're playing Super Mario #1 on NES, and Mario disappears. He then skips right past our human-universe-realm and appears in universe composed of atoms of which your-and-my entire universe is one single individual atom. When the people Mario meets in this beyond realm ask him "Where did you come from?", he can't possibly explain what he travelled. Not only did he travel from 2d to 3d, but probably an additional dimension or two.

To answer your questions: When Mario appeared in the beyond realm he was not being animated by the NES machine on Earth. So, whatever experiences Mario brings back to the NES realm will have to be translated to NES in order to retain them or even experience them at all on NES.

The reason the metaphor skipped past our realm to a beyond realm (in case it annoyed you) was to provide the visualization without giving you the option to tether Mario's appearance in the beyond realm to any direct linear link of travel or translation (such as computer code translating to project onto a tv screen).

Do I really seem that easily annoyed Þ ( lol ) — don't answer that, I'm trying to quit coffee for a while.

 

[Kim]

Certainly no "fudging over" the HPC on my part. It became an integral part of the discussion over on The Paracast, which went on for years ( literally ). However, in the end, it still gets us no closer to solving the problem. If I weren't still rooted in a physicalist approach, I'd be signing on with the New Mysterians. Whether or not the brain plays a causal or interpretive role in consciousness is a whole other question. Why can't it be both?

The best evidence that the brain plays a causal role is neuroscience. If you haven't already done so, I'd suggest starting with basic sensory processing, memory, and the thalamocortical loop. After that, it seems reasonable to suggest that consciousness isn't strictly epiphenomenal. After all, if it's operating in a feedback loop, it must be a constant process of stimulus, detection & response.

So although there's no reasonable evidence to suggest that consciousness involves "tuning in" to a remotely generated broadcast, there is evidence we may be tuning into our own. Mind you, there's no way to know that for sure either — back to the brain in a vat problem. But even if we assume that we are "tuned in" to some remote broadcast instead of creating our own, that still doesn't explain the phenomenon of consciousness.

The significance of this state of affairs is that the most likely situation boils down to us humans being fully integrated autonomous beings, and therefore any loss of components results in the loss of part of us as persons. Those who think of themselves only as spiritual ( for lack of a better term ) discount this holistic approach by making the body inconsequential. However, that approach is nothing short of wilful ignorance.

True immortality requires that none of what defines us as persons is destroyed – ever. It's not sufficient to dismiss any part of our being simply because it's inconvenient for our beliefs. What defines us as humans exists on all levels from the materials that make up our bodies, to the processes and phenomena associated with it — including but not limited to consciousness.

I'm sure you've heard of ppl suffering massive loss of brain matter (the highest one I'm aware of was 70%) that w/ time regained full functioning. Eben Alexander said he didn't recognize his family & friends at first after exiting his coma, which is easy to believe since his frontal cortex was reduced to pus, but he too regained memories & functionality. The Holographic Universe by M. Talbot says that the cosmos is "at least in part" an image projected by the human mind. That other " part " I'm guessing is called in some systems the Knower or the spiritual realm. I believe it was Jung & Philip K. Dick that referred to the pleroma, a sphere or a surrounding envelope outside the cosmos.
Thanx to David Bailey for referring to the critical mass of evidence in NDEs for soul survival. Let me add the stupendous revelations about rebirth as a fact due to the investigations of Drs Stevenson & Tucker at UV's Dept. of Perceptual Studies. Jeffrey Mishlove has some quite edifying anecdotes from researchers like James G. Matlock. I just stumbled on to quite a list of other rebirth publications @ https://owlcation.com/humanities/reincarnationbooks

 

[Kim]

I spent a very long time exploring Jung-Pauli dual aspect monism, and came away convinced.

Please let me know some of the best sources for Jung-Pauli dual aspect monism. I rarely find myself sorry to learn more about Jung's insights. Is that Wolfgang Pauli, the physicist?

 

[David Bailey]

Is that Wolfgang Pauli, the physicist?

Yes, the two seem to have cooperated for some time!

David

 

[Alex]

The assumption is that the results indicate some transference of information prior to the subject becoming aware of it.

yep, that's what the experiment demonstrates.

However that is not what is actually being measured. The actual readings are coming from the subject.

Ok, but I think we're kind of going in circles here. If you postulate spooky action at a distance, and then you set up an experiment that would test the effect of the postulated spooky action, and then if you're able to measure the effect of the spooky action within your test you've gone about as far as science (as we understand it) can take us.

Isn't this the debate physicists we're having a hundred years ago? isn't radin building on, and demonstrating experimentally that these longstanding doubts about physicalism need to be taken seriously.

 

[Starmonkey]

 

[Bhakti]

Please let me know some of the best sources for Jung-Pauli dual aspect monism. I rarely find myself sorry to learn more about Jung's insights. Is that Wolfgang Pauli, the physicist?

Yes. The Jung-Pauli association was fascinating. Just do a search and all the sources come up. It took me hours to go through it all but I came away convinced their combined dual aspect monism theory is the best one out there. It is referenced frequently, including I believe by Radin (when he is making sense).

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Isn't this the debate physicists we're having a hundred years ago? isn't radin building on, and demonstrating experimentally that these longstanding doubts about physicalism need to be taken seriously.

Absolutely. On the rest. I wouldn't say that looking objectively at the evidence is "going in circles". The analogy to entanglement doesn't hold because in entanglement experiments the paths of the entangled particles can be followed from emission to detection. There is no doubt about their relationship.

In contrast, there is nothing in Radin's experiments that definitively connects the stimulus to the subject. There is only an unexplained statistical anomaly that may or may not represent a connection — that's a very big difference.

 

[Alex]

The analogy to entanglement doesn't hold because in entanglement experiments the paths of the entangled particles can be followed from emission to detection. There is no doubt about their relationship.

https://noetic.org/publication/psyc...tangled-photons-five-exploratory-experiments/
Psychophysical interactions with entangled photons: Five exploratory experiments
November 17, 2021
Arnaud Delorme, PhD, Dean Radin, PhD, Peter Bancel, PhD
Radin, D., Bancel, P., & Delorme, A. (2021). Psychophysical interactions with entangled photons: Five exploratory studies. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 1(1-2).
Abstract
Objective: Four laboratory studies and an online experiment explored psychophysical (mind matter) interactions with quantum entangled photons.
Method: Entanglement correlation strength measured in real time was presented via a graph or dynamic images displayed on a computer monitor or web browser. Participants were tasked with mentally influencing that metric.
Results: A statistically significant increase in entanglement strength was obtained in experimental conditions in the four lab studies p 0.02), with particularly strong results observed in three studies conducted at the Institute of Noetic Sciences p 0.0002). Modest results p 0.05) were observed in a high quality subset of entanglement samples in an online experiment. Control experiments using the same equipment and protocols, but without observers present, showed results consistent with chance expectation in both the lab and online studies.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

https://noetic.org/publication/psyc...tangled-photons-five-exploratory-experiments/
Psychophysical interactions with entangled photons: Five exploratory experiments
November 17, 2021
Arnaud Delorme, PhD, Dean Radin, PhD, Peter Bancel, PhD
Radin, D., Bancel, P., & Delorme, A. (2021). Psychophysical interactions with entangled photons: Five exploratory studies. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 1(1-2).
Abstract
Objective: Four laboratory studies and an online experiment explored psychophysical (mind matter) interactions with quantum entangled photons.
Method: Entanglement correlation strength measured in real time was presented via a graph or dynamic images displayed on a computer monitor or web browser. Participants were tasked with mentally influencing that metric.
Results: A statistically significant increase in entanglement strength was obtained in experimental conditions in the four lab studies p 0.02), with particularly strong results observed in three studies conducted at the Institute of Noetic Sciences p 0.0002). Modest results p 0.05) were observed in a high quality subset of entanglement samples in an online experiment. Control experiments using the same equipment and protocols, but without observers present, showed results consistent with chance expectation in both the lab and online studies.

Interesting, but inconclusive ( at least to me ). But for the sake of discussion, if we assume that the experiment does indicate some sort of effect of the mind on the outcome, then it just proves that the mind is a physical phenomenon ( like I've been saying all along ). Otherwise it couldn't interact with physical phenomena such as photons.

We also need to be careful here about the assumptions being made. We don't know what consciousness is composed of on a physical level, but it seems intimately related to EM, which involves theoretical things like virtual photons, so it may be the case that the effect has nothing to do with conscious intention, but some sort of interaction on the quantum physical scale ( which is what's being assumed anyway ).

In other words, perhaps the subjects could be concentrating really hard on pizza, rather than what they were told to concentrate on, and they'd get the same anomalous statistical results. However, those types of variables weren't being tested to see if the results were any different.

I also recently ran across some interesting info on how cosmic rays can affect computer systems. Given that we're dealing with a statistical significance where only a few flipped bits could mean interpreting the whole thing differently, this may not be as trivial as it sounds.

I'd like to add here that the idea that we are unique individuals who cannot simply be shuffled-off into some afterlife and recycled into another body doesn't devalue anything about our existence. Indeed, I would say that our mortality makes the life we have even more valuable.

 

[Silence]

We also need to be careful here about the assumptions being made. We don't know what consciousness is composed of on a physical level, but it seems intimately related to EM, which involves theoretical things like virtual photons, so it may be the case that the effect has nothing to do with conscious intention, but some sort of interaction on the quantum physical scale ( which is what's being assumed anyway ).

Just a bit of irony to point out.

There's nothing wrong with what you conjectured about potential "physical" explanations for mind. But you can't have it both ways.

The "assumption" that a physical explanation of mind will emerge from EM or some other branch of physics/science is ultimately the exact same promissory note as other assumed metaphysical explanations. Yes, the reductionst, materialists falls back on the history of science's "success" as justification but we know that's faulty logic.

Any reasonably structured theory of mind should be taken at face value whether it conforms with the currently scientific orthodoxy or not.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Just a bit of irony to point out.

There's nothing wrong with what you conjectured about potential "physical" explanations for mind. But you can't have it both ways.

The "assumption" that a physical explanation of mind will emerge from EM or some other branch of physics/science is ultimately the exact same promissory note as other assumed metaphysical explanations. Yes, the reductionst, materialists falls back on the history of science's "success" as justification but we know that's faulty logic.

Any reasonably structured theory of mind should be taken at face value whether it conforms with the currently scientific orthodoxy or not.

Not exactly — The physicalist model allows for all phenomena of nature to be included as part of the physical realm, including EM. Perhaps what you are thinking of is the precursor to the physicalist model generally known as materialism. The two are often conflated, but they can be substantially different.

 

[David Bailey]

Not exactly — The physicalist model allows for all phenomena of nature to be included as part of the physical realm, including EM. Perhaps what you are thinking of is the precursor to the physicalist model generally known as materialism. The two are often conflated, but they can be substantially different.

So in your view, does the physicality model rule out anything - esp for example?

David

 

[J Randall Murphy]

So in your view, does the physicality model rule out anything - esp for example?

David

Nope — If it exists and is detectable by some means, either by our senses or some sort of detection equipment, then it resides in the realm of the physical. Consequently, assuming ESP is a real phenomenon in the way we think it is, then it represents some sort of information transference that is detectable by our "extra sense", and therefore it resides within our physical realm.

Personally, I think there's too much evidence, even if it might be deemed inconclusive by others, to dismiss the phenomenon of ESP. What the exact causal agents are however, remains uncertain. There is still the possibility of an unseen third party influence.