I was wondering about methods of development in consciousness exploration that would help us see the context of Near Death Studies as a method of approach? To help in recognizing a freedom with regard to awakening our physical materialistic body constraint awareness.
What we have been experiencing in our everyday lives has correlations with the focus levels shown here. Maybe there is something in your own consciousness you see of yourself that can be correlated that you did not see before?
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven
Some thoughts on the latest NDE account. Interesting.
I wonder what Sam Harris would say about Pam Reynolds' NDE. She was under the knife and saw things that Sam Harris wouldn't believe, either. For one hour she exhibited no breathing, no EEG recorded brainwaves nor a heartbeat. Reynolds flatlined and was clinically dead for about an hour, and yet she was aware of certain events that occurred in the operating room while anaesthetized and body temp lowered to stop bleeding as a neurosurgeon worked to save her from what other doctors said was an inoperable brain tumor. And she lived to tell about it.
Alexander is not the first neurosurgeon nor scientist to conclude that consciousness and physical brain are two separate things. Sam Harris admits to being in the dark about human consciousness, and some scientists have simply made a leap of faith about it. I've never seen an angel, and we can be sure that Sam Harris has never eyeballed the actual force of gravity, but at least I am not ashamed to admit to having a leap of faith about what I believe to be true. If Sam Harris really is interested in human consciousness, he should spend more time in the lab and doing basic research to prove absolutely and empirically what it is that he does believe. I think Sam Harris is spiritually adrift and probably felt the urge to write about his feelings on a matter which he himself has never experienced.
Yes Fidel and people who believe in evolution should spend more time in the lab and do basic research to prove absolutely and empirically what it is that they believe. People of faith have made the leap and they know that GOD created the world in seven days. So far no body has disproved anything about what GOD has done or not done.
Being in the dark about human consciousness as neuroscientist Sam Harris admits doesn't necessarily suggest that we're alone in the dark, due to the fact that the whole body of science hasn't figured it out yet. But they're working on it. This lack of understanding doesn't necessarily imply either that referring to Rene Decartes' 'Passions of the Soul,' or perhaps contriving of other supernatural explanations will get us any further ahead.
I believe that additional study and advances concerning biology and adaptation will eventually prove to be more helpful in understanding not only human consciousness, but also the consciousness of other animals as well. Dogs for instance exhibit many characteristics and expressions that we normally associate as elements of consciousness or awareness, such as jealously, possessiveness, wanting to please, being mindful of having done something wrong after having the wrong previously pointed out, etc.
On the face of it in terms of biological adaptation, we could start from further study of the known - electrical discharges flowing throughout the nervous system for instance - and eventually devise and assign a range that is informed by how many electrical firings are being processed at any given time. If science can determine and assign living things somewhere along a range based on measuring the frequency and rate of electrical impulses being transmitted throughout the nervous system, we might then better postulate that consciousness is the result of selection and adaptation processes. In Don Henley's song "Dirty Laundry," he poses the question 'Is the Head Dead Yet?' to imply that we're not finally cold on the slab until the brain stops processing and firing off messages, which are implanted there as the sum of our experiences from birth.
Spectrum, I'm assuming you are already familiar with the Seth material ?
Spectrum, I'm assuming you are already familiar with the Seth material ?
Yes. There was a time I read the complete works of.
Although in a minority, some Xian sects also support women's rights unlike many of the Xian fanatics to the south of us. I thought the rebuttal was far more coherent and scientific than the article.
Faith is faith you either have it or you don't. Faith proves nothing that is why it is called faith and not fact. The nature of consciousness is a fascinating subject but I personally think trying to tie it into a specific sect's believes about an after life is pointless. I remember being fascinated by John Lilly's ideas back in the late '70's.
Here is a trio of men who have had many similar experiences to the article's author.
Polaroid photograph taken Easter Sunday 1991, at the home of Dr. Oscar Janiger. From left to Allen Ginsberg, Timothy Leary, and John C. Lilly, M.D. Date 3 April 1991 Source Own work Author Philip H. Bailey
Yes Fidel and people who believe in evolution should spend more time in the lab and do basic research to prove absolutely and empirically what it is that they believe. People of faith have made the leap and they know that GOD created the world in seven days. So far no body has disproved anything about what GOD has done or not done.
Catholic and Anglican churches both support Darwinian evolution.
I am Catholic.
I, too, support Darwin's theory of evolution.
And SJ has a point, scientists are working on solving the mind-body paradox. They've been working on it it since Plato's time in the sun and continues baffling philosophers, physicists, mathematicians and even cranky neurosurgeons like Sam Harris.
There is more evidence for evolution than for the sum total parts of the physical brain equating to consciousness.
Who you are is a lot more complex than Sam Harris casres to acknowledge. The truth about the universe and human consciousness surely dwarfs Sam Harris' physical brain and sum total intelligence by some immeasurable order of magnitude times 10 to the exponent 500, or something pretty close to that. And I'll bet the farm that Sam Harris is destined to be a cranky neurosurgeon for at least the rest of his natural life span. 
I really do think that man will someday resort to brain augmentation and-or AI in order to begin to understand the universe and consciousness. Lord Rees says we may never know the big picture because of limitations at this stage of human evolution. Before we know the hard answers we must first survive our own technological adolescence. And perhaps as little as several thousand years after succeeding to not destroy ourselves or the planet all living things depend on, we might begin to understand. For now I think such an understanding might be as elusive for us as would expecting a macaque monkey to comprehend Einstein's theory of relativity.
I think that scientists need to look for shortcuts to evolving rapidly. What we could really use is a kind of benevolent Christopher Columbus and explorers to boost our understanding of things scientific and otherwise because right now we're just babes in the woods of a giant forest extending to infinity. I believe in evolution and the possibility for sufficiently advanced technologies indistinguishable from magic. I believe there are probably advanced civilizations so technically developed that they might seem god-like in comparison to ourselves. It might be a very humbling experience to know the truth. What if Toronto, NYC, or Vancouver is not the centre of the universe? Would we be able to handle knowing that? It's possible imo. I am a relentless possibilist.
They've been working on it it since Plato's time in the sun and continues baffling philosophers, physicists, mathematicians and even cranky neurosurgeons like Sam Harris.
But now the proper diagnostic tools are being developed and brought on line. Everything prior was just a 'here's what I think' explanation. Something like astrology before astronomy, religion before philosophical inquiry, alchemy before chemistry, sailing off the edge of the earth before circumnavigation.
double post
I remember being fascinated by John Lilly's ideas back in the late '70's.Here is a trio of men who have had many similar experiences to the article's author.
Polaroid photograph taken Easter Sunday 1991, at the home of Dr. Oscar Janiger. From left to Allen Ginsberg, Timothy Leary, and John C. Lilly, M.D. Date 3 April 1991 Source Own work Author Philip H. Bailey
Yes, we had gone over this subject once before. You helped me to use search function on Leary....I think the resumption of the subject was to see where we were at.....and I don't think much has changed with our views.
Eliminative materialist philosopher Patricia Smith Churchland has famously remarked about Penrose's theories that "Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules."
I like what Patricia Smith Churchland said about "Pixie Dust," and about what is happening "at the synapse." While interesting it leaves room for a whole lot of space to explore?
They've been working on it it since Plato's time in the sun and continues baffling philosophers, physicists, mathematicians and even cranky neurosurgeons like Sam Harris.But now the proper diagnostic tools are being developed and brought on line. Everything prior was just a 'here's what I think' explanation. Something like astrology before astronomy, religion before philosophical inquiry, alchemy before chemistry, sailing off the edge of the earth before circumnavigation.
Yes I've read about the Halifax Consciousness Scanner. I suppose it's a start that might lead to better treatments for people in previously thought to be vegetative states. The idea is that brain-damaged people are trapped in their bodies. But who is it that is trapped inside their biological prison? If our brains are like physical computers as certain scientific and philosophical materialists on that side of the argument suggest, then who is the programmer? Every machine I can think of represents technology created by someone since the dawn of man.
David Chalmers said:
Roughly, science progresses along a spectrum. Physics explains chemistry, which explains biology, which explains psychology, which explains sociology. Consciousness is a problem for science because it doesn't fit in that spectrum.
There is still the hard question of consciousness, and it's a huge problem for science to tackle at this point in our progression. We will probably make many smaller advances along the way and leading to a better understanding of things in general sometime in the distant future. We will all be dead a long time before that happens, though.
They've been working on it it since Plato's time in the sun and continues baffling philosophers, physicists, mathematicians and even cranky neurosurgeons like Sam Harris.But now the proper diagnostic tools are being developed and brought on line. Everything prior was just a 'here's what I think' explanation. Something like astrology before astronomy, religion before philosophical inquiry, alchemy before chemistry, sailing off the edge of the earth before circumnavigation.
For centuries, the issue of whether or not we have free will has been a philosophical (or even a theological) issue and is, in fact, one of the core questions in the discipline of philosophy. But, the ANSWER to the question is almost certainly going to come from SCIENCE...and my sense is that there will be great human resistance to accepting what science is likely to tell us.
Yes, pixie dust might be a better explanation for all intents and purposes. For now I think that I like the Popperian view? And even John Eccles' theory for a dualist explanation of consciousness appears elegant enough for this person whomever he is currently occupying the inner confines of my physical brain. Am I just a sack of neurons as, was it Thomas Huxley, once concluded? No, I don't believe it's that simple. I would need empirical, scientific proof of that. We might as well be babbling zombies if that is true. I think babblers are not zombies, and that we think therefore we exist for greater purposes than just some sort of galactic lab experiment gone awry. I think we have a real purpose, and that we are all conscious parts of the larger universe around us.
For centuries, the issue of whether or not we have free will has been a philosophical (or even a theological) issue and is, in fact, one of the core questions in the discipline of philosophy. But, the ANSWER to the question is almost certainly going to come from SCIENCE...and my sense is that there will be great human resistance to accepting what science is likely to tell us.
Do you believe, Sven, that what you eat for dinner on October 20, 2025 is already pre-determined? If so, then you probably lean toward the materialist view of reality. And you wouldn't be entirely alone in your belief just a tad on the short side of proving it to be true is all. I think you're taller than all that.
If our brains are like physical computers as certain scientific and philosophical materialists on that side of the argument suggest, then who is the programmer?
In "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, Dawkins notes that St. Thomas Aquinas argued: Everything has a cause - and the first cause is God.
Well, if EVERYTHING has a cause, then their can't BE a "first cause" (otherwise not "everything" has a cause).
Or, to your metaphor: If the complex machine that is our brain must have had a "programmer," then the "programmer," who is surely even more complex than our brains, must have had a "programmer"...and etc.
Do you believe, Sven, that what you eat for dinner on October 20, 2025 is already pre-determined?
No. Because there is evidence that some physical phenomena that would affect such a prediction are random.
Yes, pixie dust might be a better explanation for all intents and purposes. For now I think that I like the Popperian view? And even John Eccles' theory for a dualist explanation of consciousness appears elegant enough for this person whomever he is currently occupying the inner confines of my physical brain. Am I just a sack of neurons as, was it Thomas Huxley, once concluded? No, I don't believe it's that simple. I would need empirical, scientific proof of that. We might as well be babbling zombies if that is true. I think babblers are not zombies, and that we think therefore we exist for greater purposes than just some sort of galactic lab experiment gone awry. I think we have a real purpose, and that we are all conscious parts of the larger universe around us.
The blank slate was of course interesting to me about how we begin to develop our perspective views about what begins and where it begins? See also Blank Slate.
The blank slate was of course interesting to me about how we begin to develop our perspective views about what begins and where it begins? See also Blank Slate.
The blank slate theory is interesting and surely explains a lot about human nature. The victimized female who tends to always select abusive male partners is obviously true as some of us will know someone fitting that mold.
Apparently American philosopher David Lewis believed in many alternate universes(only physically possible ones) where all choices and consequences are played out in space-time ie. No chance for Harry Potter worlds. Not sure but I think Lewis' philosophy is based on Newtonian science of atomic reality.
And then there is David Deutsch, a contemporary theoretical physicist, philosopher and thinker extrodinaire and, imo, kind of like yourself, Spectrum. You come up with the most interesting questions in these threads I've found. Deutsch is one of the more conservative quantum theorists, but even in Deutsch's "fabric of reality", Harry Potter worlds are possible and rendered by a universal computer somewhere at an extreme end of the universe and maintained by sentient beings. I still haven't wrapped my head around that one and likely never will. In Deutsch's Popperian-Darwinian view of reality(yes he's a self-described atheist), all determinist possibilities are probable in physically possible worlds or what Deutsch describes as the multiverse. Somewhere a me-copy does what I would never do in this universe, and so on and so on. Somewhere in the multiverse, copies of all of us are making choices which we would never select in this reality. Does free will exist in this theory? It's difficult to say for sure.
Do you believe, Sven, that what you eat for dinner on October 20, 2025 is already pre-determined?No. Because there is evidence that some physical phenomena that would affect such a prediction are random.
Ah! randomness. But at the same time we can't produce a truly random function generator in computer science. We can mimick randomness to a greater extent, but the theory is that there will always be some degree of human influence in seeding the random number or random event generator. If the code can be cracked by a 15 year-old or some guy hacking in his apartment, or by agents of a foreign government, aliens etc, then there is obviously some predictability built-in to the "random" number generator. It's a tough problem for computer science. Apparently all events are random according to QM theory while other theorists of the same cloth believe in determinism only. Which is it? Perhaps a little of both. I think the jury is hung, Sven.
If our brains are like physical computers as certain scientific and philosophical materialists on that side of the argument suggest, then who is the programmer?In "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, Dawkins notes that St. Thomas Aquinas argued: Everything has a cause - and the first cause is God. Well, if EVERYTHING has a cause, then their can't BE a "first cause" (otherwise not "everything" has a cause). Or, to your metaphor: If the complex machine that is our brain must have had a "programmer," then the "programmer," who is surely even more complex than our brains, must have had a "programmer"...and etc.
If the singularity was a perfectly symetrical, infinitely dense and hot ball of whatever before there was light, time and space, then surely there was a beginning, Sven. I think it's possible that in just a few trilion years from now the universe may begin contracting inward and become the same perfectly symetrical singularity at some point and destroying everything that exists. And then it starts all over again. I say, it might start all over again like deja vu. Have you ever experienced deja vu?
Or, to your metaphor: If the complex machine that is our brain must have had a "programmer," then the "programmer," who is surely even more complex than our brains, must have had a "programmer"...and etc.
Sorry I didn't mean to suggest that God is the programmer controlling all of our physical brains. I meant to summarize Jung through Chalmers etc wrt human consciousness. Those philosophers suggested that the physical brain is more than just a proprammerless computer. Their view is that the physical brain is more like a radio receiver or transformer which allows some sort of cosmic energy or consciousness to manifest itself.
And I think that either way, whether you support the materialist or non-materialist view of reality, both have profound implications for consciousness. Theoretically if the matieralist view of reality is true, then human consciousness might some day be uploaded to silicon chips or whatever material they will be made of at some future time. That would weird enough. But if reality turns out to be better explained by a non-materialist theory, well, then, that will just be totally weird. Freaky-deaky even.
Philosophy appears not as interested anymore in attributing 'man's' being and consciousness to an external, non-physical origin. Being is now better understood as the sum of our 'being-there,' extrapolated over time to produce the contemporary reality in whichever era our 'being' is examined within. Modern philosophy on the other hand, from Kant, Nietzsche, even Heidegger, Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari etc, appear to be more concerned with how our current reality was formulated, in addition to what we're doing with it currently. Immanence is more of an historical subject of interest than a topic requiring further contemplation for veracity. Immanence arose as a subject, where the setting was constituted from everything that had occurred up to and including the moment where discussion takes place. The fact that we still encounter Immanence scattered as it so often is within the context of more serious inquiry betrays an inability to simply move on from archaic forms of inquiry that were held over, often officially reinforced for correctness, from much earlier notions of what was once understood as our 'being.'
The blank slate theory is interesting and surely explains a lot about human nature. The victimized female who tends to always select abusive male partners is obviously true as some of us will know someone fitting that mold.
This provides for a beginning point of discussion about the parameters of our thinking in terms of the resolution to our experiences. Do they run further then the constraints we apply to them? In science your boxed in, and you replay all components in the hopes that you can extend or explain the problem and arrive at a conclusion which provides for a stepping off point for furthering the limitations of those constraints.
Apparently American philosopher David Lewis believed in many alternate universes(only physically possible ones) where all choices and consequences are played out in space-time ie. No chance for Harry Potter worlds. Not sure but I think Lewis' philosophy is based on Newtonian science of atomic reality.
Intuition and Logic in Mathematics
by Henri Poincaré
[i]On the other hand, look at Professor Klein: he is studying one of the most abstract questions of the theory of functions to determine whether on a given Riemann surface there always exists a function admitting of given singularities. What does the celebrated German geometer do? He replaces his Riemann surface by a metallic surface whose electric conductivity varies according to certain laws. He connects two of its points with the two poles of a battery. The current, says he, must pass, and the distribution of this current on the surface will define a function whose singularities will be precisely those called for by the enunciation.[/i]
For me the extension here was to see that billiard balls that collide are somehow extended to believe that the greater opportunity here has been to carry the relevance to the sound that is generated at those moments. This carries in a sense as a geometrical expression defined in in Euclidean beginning about a point and then geometrically "all things follow." This is a schematically drawing if you like about beginnings, yet it is about the dynamical progression of how the non-euclidean moves even more into projective geometries. All of this is a framework for views about the world in which we live and part of the reality. So you apply this to the cosmos.
Deutsch is one of the more conservative quantum theorists, but even in Deutsch's "fabric of reality", Harry Potter worlds are possible and rendered by a universal computer somewhere at an extreme end of the universe and maintained by sentient beings. I still haven't wrapped my head around that one and likely never will. In Deutsch's Popperian-Darwinian view of reality(yes he's a self-described atheist), all determinist possibilities are probable in physically possible worlds or what Deutsch describes as the multiverse. Somewhere a me-copy does what I would never do in this universe, and so on and so on. Somewhere in the multiverse, copies of all of us are making choices which we would never select in this reality. Does free will exist in this theory? It's difficult to say for sure.
So given here a parameter with which one wants to talk about and how we can see in the materialist world, the constraint is found in the expression of correlation and meaning about the geometry we live with. This was defined by the beginning of a Newtonian experience, and in a sense I am showing the diversity of this explanation about reality as Euclid's determination and postulates which were extended.
Gauss and Riemann gave a freedom that a Euclidean could never appreciate, had not the quest of others helped Riemann to make the leap.
Within the comment section of this post I have defined the parameters of our discussion. There is no before from the point of, and in this discussion, our universe. Nothing before, and nothing after? Does this make sense?
We do not want to induce religion as to define our experience but to talk about what science has to say about the entanglement we have with nature? Would you not agree?
I think it would be helpful if we didn't introduce religion. Science on the other hand, at least some of the non-consumer research varieties, has much to say about our entanglement with nature.
I am suggesting that there is a contact with nature that is indeed subtle with regard to consciousness defined "as focus." So in a sense experience suggests a deep impact and meaning to its person that can be correlated with others of similar experiences?
What is the nature of this subtle contact, that is not based upon verifiable examination and experience? If it means further examination of the many demonstrated elements that we share with everything around us at the sub-atomical level, then we're talking about something of scientific interest.
I shall return, Spectrum and SJ. Prolly Friday or Saturday. Cheers.
"I believe in truths, but I don't believe in the Truth. Furthermore, I think that vision of an underlying Truth, with as capital T, that scientists are privy to, has been a very counterproductive vision. It has served scientists very well, but what it has done, above all, is encloses the world of science and immunize it from criticism." -- Evelyn Fox Keller, physicist, and professor of rhetoric
"I believe in truths, but I don't believe in the Truth. Furthermore, I think that vision of an underlying Truth, with as capital T, that scientists are privy to, has been a very counterproductive vision. It has served scientists very well, but what it has done, above all, is encloses the world of science and immunize it from criticism." -- Evelyn Fox Keller, physicist, and professor of rhetoric
Does a subject examined for verification consist of parallel and/or intersecting truths for each of its elements? If so, the subject risks being completely emptied of substance through a cancelling out of the elements, a binary game of chicken if you will. While its fair to say that scientific truth is a determination informed by knowledge, and is therefore subjected to the bias of the day, or to be more precise, the bias of permissible knowledge, today it is the commodity in all of its functionality that works to selectively isolate the world of science, often using a rationale similar to the one quoted here. Truth with a small ’t’ sounds like a fib.
And thanks for the heads up Fidel.
Sciences wraps it up in a box?
Rather, science dumps things into a box but leaves the lid ajar in case there's more. I should point out that I'm not a fan of science. Look what they've done with it.
Regardless of which person is experiencing, but to say, that each experience has some kind of "refractive index to it like some gem characteristic of thought?
Other experiences that would be constitued within a gesture that is. A physical act, speech, an expression, all of which are then absorbed for processing.
.... of course where one begins from what is wrong leads to wrong ideas eventually. So, that is where one discusses the idea then isn't it? It has to fit within the reality in order to be part of the reality right? I am just showing the ways that have been derived and further pondering this communication with nature.
That's what we're trying to avoid in terms of the discussion around consciousness, and so yes, as much as possible it does seem to make better sense to tether ourselves to physical reality from the outset, because to contemplate otherwise could very easily lead us down the path toward all sorts of nonsense such as telepathy, ESP, spoon bending, hearing the trees whisper, etc.
As a materialist then one has to have a foundational point of view that leads to greater comprehension of the reality around us?
The being of a thing can be understood as the result of itself and its surroundings without reference to the transcendental, or to be more specific, without referring to Spinoza in search of a more solid footing to Hegel, neither of which ultimately leads us very far from Cartesian explanations, because whether or not a measure of organic inter-dependence or independence is acknowledged, it is still ultimately given to a non-material primary cause without further explanation. In answer to your question then, a foundational point certainly is important, but our lack of understanding where it concerns specific points of origin shouldn't be taken for an inventor's license.
Without much time and patience for science you present positions which one would be in and about as a philosphical approach with regard to that science.
The philosophical approach to science is sort of what I alluded to earlier in saying that I was not a fan of what society has done and is doing with science. The philosophical approach as far as I can determine partially involves the study of science's impact on society, how the various components of science such as modern medicine, psychology, sociology, etc passed into human knowledge, and if there were reasons behind the various developments other than inquiry itself. The subject is the domain of science itself, or of a particular branch, not a peer review of evidence as such.
So you can not distance your self from what needs to be done by saying little about science.
Its likely because we've encountered precious little of it in our discussions.
It's obviously you have some background.
No actually. After 28 years in the military its been a simple process of seeking out the corresponding literature.
Thanks for the discusssion.
And you as well.
I believe that additional study and advances concerning biology and adaptation will eventually prove to be more helpful in understanding not only human consciousness, but also the consciousness of other animals as well.If science can determine and assign living things somewhere along a range based on measuring the frequency and rate of electrical impulses being transmitted throughout the nervous system, we might then better postulate that consciousness is the result of selection and adaptation processes.
I agree with you and I provided the link I did on the subject of focus points as a indication of measured results that have been calibrated in terms of, as consciousness understood. Of course I was referring to the Monroe Institute but in moving forward you suggested such a pathway to be understood. Yes I see this too....but on the correlation is limited to limbs and brain control of.
Also to provide for more info....
Mechanical Induction- more info regarding Persinger
Philosophy appears not as interested anymore in attributing 'man's' being and consciousness to an external, non-physical origin. Being is now better understood as the sum of our 'being-there,' extrapolated over time to produce the contemporary reality in whichever era our 'being' is examined within. Modern philosophy on the other hand, from Kant, Nietzsche, even Heidegger, Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari etc, appear to be more concerned with how our current reality was formulated, in addition to what we're doing with it currently. Immanence is more of an historical subject of interest than a topic requiring further contemplation for veracity. Immanence arose as a subject, where the setting was constituted from everything that had occurred up to and including the moment where discussion takes place. The fact that we still encounter Immanence scattered as it so often is within the context of more serious inquiry betrays an inability to simply move on from archaic forms of inquiry that were held over, often officially reinforced for correctness, from much earlier notions of what was once understood as our 'being.'
You have define the issue about spirit as related to "a Heaven," yet we are here talking about the mundane? Moving from the issue of the constraints we have applied to our selves in terms of the archaic forms. We do not want to induce religion as to define our experience but to talk about what science has to say about the entanglement we have with nature? Would you not agree?
While of course the opening is about Heaven is it defined in terms of the experience portrayed. I am suggesting that there is a contact with nature that is indeed subtle with regard to consciousness defined "as focus." So in a sense experience suggests a deep impact and meaning to its person that can be correlated with others of similar experiences?
Tom Campbell begins his full workshop"Reality 101" presentation at the University of Calgary. The Friday video is a short overview of his full workshop. Sunday's presentation in three parts completes the series. See Also: Tom Campbell: Calgary Theory only (Sat) 1/3
In doing some follow up with the Monroe research on consciousness Focus at their Gateway project which I have not engaged. Campbell was instrumental in developing a consistent approach toward Monroe's developments in consciousness. In doing my research I began to understand Campbell's approach and language development in terms of his digital approach. I resisted his interpretation of the digital reality he associates at the same time recognize the levels at which computation is being developed. The comparative view that consciousness exists in such a state?
As a materialist then one has to have a foundational point of view that leads to greater comprehension of the reality around us?The being of a thing can be understood as the result of itself and its surroundings without reference to the transcendental, or to be more specific, without referring to Spinoza in search of a more solid footing to Hegel, neither of which ultimately leads us very far from Cartesian explanations, because whether or not a measure of organic inter-dependence or independence is acknowledged, it is still ultimately given to a non-material primary cause without further explanation. In answer to your question then, a foundational point certainly is important, but our lack of understanding where it concerns specific points of origin shouldn't be taken for an inventor's license.
Without much time and patience for science you present positions which one would be in and about as a philosphical approach with regard to that science. So you can not distance your self from what needs to be done by saying little about science. It's obviously you have some background.
Thanks for the discusssion.
What is the nature of this subtle contact, that is not based upon verifiable examination and experience? If it means further examination of the many demonstrated elements that we share with everything around us at the sub-atomical level, then we're talking about something of scientific interest.
As a materialist then one has to have a foundational point of view that leads to greater comprehension of the reality around us? Sciences wraps it up in a box? What defines you as a materialist then? The origination then of the mind body problem is how you create your law? The mundane would be a materialistic voyage of the precedents of this principle? Your truth? You can have many truths and many different people?
Arthur Young's quick piece was thought provoking. I really don't have anything to sell and there is no commercialization factors that I wish to extol. Then, more so to consider how gradations of consciousness(focus levels) maybe perceive as fundamental attributes of our everyday consciousness happenings. Regardless of which person is experiencing, but to say, that each experience has some kind of "refractive index to it like some gem characteristic of thought?"
I don't know this for certain but put forward the idea, off of other ideas that are presented and of course where one begins from what is wrong leads to wrong ideas eventually. So, that is where one discusses the idea then isn't it? It has to fit within the reality in order to be part of the reality right? I am just showing the ways that have been derived and further pondering this communication with nature.
NeuroVigil, Inc. is dedicated to the betterment of the human condition. By merging neuroscience, non-invasive wireless brain recording technology and advanced computational algorithms, an accurate and automated reading of brain wave data is rapidly generated. This information is being used to assist with the diagnosis and treatment of a myriad of medical conditions. The Company successfully went to market in 2009. See: NeuroVigil Mission Statement
Sensor Developments for Human Condition
In science research sharing one's perspective on a blackboard or white screen is an attempt in which to start from somewhere and to leave off at some point. Everyone else will either move from that position or will go off on another tangent. Prove the original expression is false somehow.
So when looking at Campbell and seeing the correlation in the development of consciousness research one tends to see where the subject is going and the desire to see that consciousness can be explained in some format that is pleasing to watch in terms of the evolution of the human being in it`s perfection
Taleb was collaborating with Benoit Mandelbrot on a general theory of risk management Collaborations A simple assumption about heads and tails, leads to bell curves and such? Taleb, N. N. (2008) Edge article: Real Life is Not a Casino So you are looking at both sides of the coin. More on the Black Swan here.
The Science of Consciousness....really?:)
So you see the question I have about focus level or gradations are somehow implied in the location of the brain are working areas that reveal an evolution of perspective as being lead away from the emotive brain structure system that is also evolving away from the flight or fight response toward this developing mind?
You see a mathematical mind moves even further away from....?... to show that it is a higher developmental form of consciousness that seeks to explain an aspect of reality that is set in mathematical language? How refined consciousness then to explain that what is has retained by impressionistic value orientated that it can always be replayed that the better mind would seek to refine this reoccurring experience and delve into its construction?
Those in a state of slumber or caught in the universal psotion of ya blah blah prove it, have a good laugh then here.
It's obviously you have some background.No actually. After 28 years in the military its been a simple process of seeking out the corresponding literature.
See....even a layman can have a somewhat intelligent perspective.....must of been all the years particpating with the Babble forum. :)
Consciousness is probably the most important characteristic of humanity, and the sad truth is that scientists understand so damned little about it. Music that inspires someone can cause others to have headaches. Big pharma has produced nothing of any real value to treat those with ADHD, schizophrenia, autism, manic depession, PTSD and a host of mental illnesses which some neuroscientists suggest are probably consciousness disorders as opposed to physical brain malfunctions, chemical imbalances etc. They can shine lights in through two windows into your mind, but they have no real idea as to whom is staring back at them. It's a total mystery to them. And sometimes we get cranky neurosurgeons explaining to us in so many convoluted terms that they are frustrated by their nagging lack of scientific understanding. Eventually people will realize what many scientists are saying is true - that corporate science and basic research are two different agendas. With the profit motive in the driver's seat, it is much more lucrative to offer snake oil cures for baldness, smelly armpits and halitosis than to do invest profits for basic research into real and debilitating human illnesses. What we need is science that places man and his surroundings at the centre of it all and not corporate shareholders and their warped sense of reality.
See....even a layman can have a somewhat intelligent perspective.....must of been all the years particpating with the Babble forum.
They can, but get it entirely wrong just as well. In the case of the layperson, it seems to be relative to what an individual is willing to process in their own right, but concurrent with open ears and eyes. Proposing something and having it shot down by contradictory evidence, and subsequently accepting the revisions while moving on all the better for it is fundamental, no matter how difficult it sometimes is, because even recognizing the origins of a difficulty to accept contradictory arguments can be instructive.
As for Rabble, people have often stated how much they've acquired from the perspectives introduced on the board over the years, but not nearly as often as it goes without being said. Sometimes there's a sense that people arrive to the board or to a discussion believing they know all thats required. But its also a place that occasionally reveals its own internal contradictions, teachable moments of another sort as it were.
Where it concerns laypersons, I found certain accounts of Joseph Jacotot's method to be interesting and somewhat inspirational, taking into consideration the language of that era, which inspired Jacques Ranciere's 'Ignorant Schoolmaster' ... the contentions of which Fidel continues to put to the test for several years running now. 
People of faith have made the leap and they know that GOD created the world in seven days. So far no body has disproved anything about what GOD has done or not done.
Six days. He rested on the seventh day. See? There's still room for more research.
Hmmm... Could that have been the "rest of reality"?
Proposing something and having it shot down by contradictory evidence, and subsequently accepting the revisions while moving on all the better for it is fundamental, no matter how difficult it sometimes is, because even recognizing the origins of a difficulty to accept contradictory arguments can be instructive.
As for Rabble, people have often stated how much they've acquired from the perspectives introduced on the board over the years, but not nearly as often as it goes without being said. Sometimes there's a sense that people arrive to the board or to a discussion believing they know all thats required. But its also a place that occasionally reveals its own internal contradictions, teachable moments of another sort as it were.
That resonated. I'm looking for the Hall of Fame thread...
Six days. He rested on the seventh day. See? There's still room for more research.
Heh. Rest of Reality. Unionist is right though. There were also two separate and contradictory occasions where various forms of external lighting were introduced, which to my mind is worth getting to the bottom of.
Consciousness is probably the most important characteristic of humanity, and the sad truth is that scientists understand so damned little about it.
They've really only been seriously working at it for a relatively short time, during which primitive tools were mostly employed. There's a difference between scientific inquiry itself and what corporatism eventually does with it, irrespective of the difference becoming as slight as it has nowadays. Personally it wouldn't come as a surprise if they finally discover one day that consciousness is nothing more than an extrapolation or adaptation from primative, organic instincts. It also wouldn't come as a shock to know that all species have their own consciousness in one form or another.
ETA: On the other hand, I'd be as astounded as anyone if they eventually establish the independence of individual consciousness from the brain of a deceased human.
What we need is science that places man and his surroundings at the centre of it all .....
This has been done to death in the past and into the present actually. People continue to make religion out of it. What we need is evidence based, peer reviewed science, but more desperately, an end to Capitalism and the various social democratic facades it throws up in front of us.
The blank slate theory is interesting and surely explains a lot about human nature. The victimized female who tends to always select abusive male partners is obviously true as some of us will know someone fitting that mold.This provides for a beginning point of discussion about the parameters of our thinking in terms of the resolution to our experiences. Do they run further then the constraints we apply to them?
i don't like this part of the discussion at all.
how 'bout you men use your own examples of your own gender human nature blank slate constraints?!! 'cause from my position ya shoulda said "abusive males always select women who've been victimized." or " men continue to objectify and demean women as it's obviously true as some of us know..."
i always thought my mom was too on the incidental demeaning of women and found it embarassing. but over the last few months i've started believing we women need to. i actually had a man tell me a couple of days ago society worked better when men were the head of the household. ya right...it worked better for men. blank slate human nature on your premises means to me ya get to either ignore women in the equation or see them as the only ones with negative human nature traits!!!!!
I said what I did because I have slightly more hope for some women changing their behaviour than for some men.
Similarly I would tend to ask smokers to consider quitting smoking tobacco than to plead with big tobacco companies, their army of lawyers and bought and paid-for "scientists" to consider folding up shop for good. The only thing they might understand would be consumer law suits claiming damages from use of their products.
reading peeps don't know the whys of what seems like casual sexism. your explanation smacks of "boys will be boys" thinking!!!!! they both stand as they're written and i still don't like it.
