An Empirical Inductive Method.Applied to a Panpsychism Model of Consciousness

[Rader]

answer part 3

part two was a little long so it got stuck in part 3

There could not be more bottomless ideas to contemplate than those associated with the Source, nor logically confounding. How, for example, does one ponder something that is everywhere and determines everything but cannot be observed, and which is so real it can’t cease to exist yet is also the antithesis of what we understand as substantive? And especially, how does one contain with concepts, delimit or define that which is uncontainable, unlimited and therefore indefinable? The danger one faces when developing assumptions for and reasoning about the Source is allowing the discussion to degenerate into a rationalistic exercise. This is the exact reason why if one is determined to reason about the Source (i.e., as opposed to pursuing the direct experience of it), using Source illumination in an inductive model of the universe may be the best way to test its absolute, if obscure, preeminence.

Can one developing assumptions for and reasoning about certain aspects of the Source, generate into a rationalistic exercise, of comprehension of the "Source". There seems to be only one difference between you and I, in the sense that we do not know what's in either ones head, because we have not had each others experience, or did we? So is knowing just pure faith?

(. . . continued) So, the “connectivity” you spoke of above is the oneness of illumination. And what is a “point”? It is not separate, but is rather a location within the panpsychic continuum; imagine a perspective that converges on or diverges from a “position,” and that is a point. Your concern that what affects one point must affect all I think is only true in the relationship of a point to the whole. My theory is, that a point and the “whole” of the panpsychic realm are exact opposites. One is specific, the other is general respectively. Any change in the general realm affects all points within it, but any change to one point has minimal effects to the whole and therefore to other points.

We know that a point can not be defined, it is a continuam. It is a mentalistic way of thinking to define the physcial world. You can do that exercise by continually drawing smaller maps of the coastline of England, to find all the coves.

The second problem, that of the physical world and panpsychism evolving together is more difficult to explain. Mostly it is still related to which is easier to first develop: physics or consciousness. If my monistic idea of a Source is correct, then anything which develops within it is more likely to evolve the closer to the nature of illumination it is. From my experience of illumination in union, consciousness appears to be illumination gently differentiated as sensitivity, concentration, and a core which retains full homogeneity. But matter, on the other hand, is anything but “gently differentiated.”

For example, one problem with having the universe bubbling up from quantum fluctuations of nothingness is explaining energy. The sophistry of the zero point energy concept does not account for the huge amount of energy packed into matter in our universe, nor the dark energy that’s expanding it ever and ever faster. The spontaneous quantum fluctuations we observe now in the universe are little more than the appearance and immediate disappearance of virtual particles, which isn’t exactly powerful enough to generate a big bang.

Then you do not see that, energy would need only be, the infinite potentiality that you spoke about the source possessing?

One reason for assuming there was a big bang is because the universe is expanding. Since observing that the rate of expansion is increasing, dark energy has been assumed present in the fabric of space; the reason the energy is called “dark” is because so far we can’t associate it with any form of matter. The energy of a photon, for instance, determines its oscillation rate. If a photon loses energy, its oscillation rate slows but still remains light which proves light and energy are two different things. The truth is, no one knows what energy is, and no one knows what light is. But using my model, the answer is really very simple, and supported by observed facts. “Light” (as photons) is compressed illumination; compress illumination more and you get an atom.

The reason that the universe appears to be expanding, are many and factually documentated. They all have one thing in common, the measurement is from inside this universe. Has anyone measured it from outside this universe? If you measured this from outside the universe, and the Source was all there was, is it going anywhere but to the Source? It has been postulated that dark matter or energy is decreasing, as knowledge and anthropy increases, that sounds like more packaging of illumination. As the foton looses energy, does it exchange information, in order to build new forms?

But what is capable of such intense compression? Here is where I say the illumination monistic theory has the advantage. If consciousness developed first, and if our own consciousness reflects the general nature of consciousness, then we can see part of what we can do is concentrate.

Now imagine a consciousness developing in the infinite, eternal Source. Once it gets going, it has eternity to evolve. How “big” can it get? The terms “big and small” don’t make any sense in relation to infinity, so our universe might be downright microscopic in relation to the panpsychic realm this model predicts it is within. But a more important question is: how evolved can it get? Well, there is no limit when an entity has eternity, infinity, an indestructible essence, and unlimited resources and power from which to develop characteristics.

What you seem to be describing is panpsychic consciousness, exponentially growing to become totally self aware of itself, through forms.

So if that panpsychic consciousness decided it wanted to evolve individual “points” within itself, then it might create an individuating tool that isolated the point within a system (CSN), and which directed it “outward” away from its panpsychic origin. The illusory sense of separation from something whose nature is oneness would create a longing, and that in turn might create the striving to reunite. If a point were, from its own desire, to reunite with the oneness of its origin, then it would attain something which must seem truly “mystical” to us: individual consciousness and oneness with its consciousness origin . . . or its “father” in “heaven” . . . or “in-light-enment” in “nirvana . . . or “surrendered” to “Allah” . . . or however someone experiencing that oneness decides to express it.

So then you mean, illumination has a purpose? To know itself through its forms.

In conclusion, I would say that the potential for the explanation of human consciousness is not going to be found in quantum models alone, or in illumination models alone because a human is the joining of something temporal and something eternal. Until experts on both side realize this, all we are going to get is either a mechanistic model, or a flaky and unrealistic model.

I think that both models demonstate that if one knows it, all will eventually know it.

 

[marcus]

As far back as I can remember (late 3's) I have been trying to figure things out in a materialistic way. I do remember delight in early morning dew on cobwebs and flowers, but I think I am really depleted in innate "sensawunda".

irony? modesty? well you are the authority about your state of mind

figuring things out in a materialistic way is coupled (as i see it) with the strongest and surest sensawonda
I can't think of anyone that made the point better than Feynmann, perhaps you know some other author (since people tire of always hearing Feynman made the exemplar)

you get to see the dewdrops in the spiderweb and you also get to imagine the intermolecular forces that minimize surface area and make a dewdrop

and you get to ask how big is a spider's brain and how did she know to make the web and how did that geometry evolve----evolution of beautiful forms is an awesome big sensawonda

and what makes the thread so strong

and how does the sky get reflected in the dewdrop
and is the bright glint an image of the sun

so the more materialistic you are the more sensawonda you get
(which Feynman pointed out with the example of the sunset---I get to paint a picture of it if I want and I ALSO get to understand why its red----or the example of the richness of his experience of the seashore I forget in what piece of writing----Feynmann has a memoir about his father, who ran a costume/uniform sales and rental business and seems to'v been a wise man)

this is a cliche isn't it?

when you start giving abstract or immaterial explanations to the 3 year old don't you start eroding the sensawonda?----I wonda

 

[selfAdjoint]

Marcus, it was just that Les had posted about going back to The Child, and what the Child feels, and I just wanted to point out that as a Child I didn't follow the program. My experiences then seem like my experiences here and now. I couldn't get anybody interested in the fact that the Moon is often visible in the daytime, although the Bible defines it as a light to light the night.

For that matter when I look at my 3 year old granddaughter, I can see she's a little materialist from the git-go. She's all about naive physics, and labelling, and counting.

 

[Les Sleeth]

In trying to understand the distinction you've made with the 3 components of consciousness I found myself trying to assign actual experiences I've had into each of the categories but then second guessed myself as I read further. For example, Embedded retention is:

"That which we’ve felt/sensed and paid attention to, whether to purposely learn and remember or from repetition (such a driving the same route to work everyday), becomes entrenched in consciousness as memory. Unless reinforced, this retention will fade over time."

The first thing I thought was "this is like studying for the CPA exam". You're just cramming stuff in trying to retain it long enough to take the test and pass it. This stuff certainly won't be retained for too long. But the whole idea behind forcing CPA's to pass this exam is because during this retention process they actually have to go through lots of processes of "understanding" many different topics which will allow them to "recollect" the topics more quickly should they ever need to go back and reference them.

But it is "integration" that has reserved itself for "understanding". In this case it would be the "mentality engendered" integration. So is studying for the CPA not an example of embedded retention or are we saying that accountants don't really understand what they're being tested on?

I’ll explain the mechanism more after your next quote, but I am suggesting that we embed before we understand. My wife is an accountant, and she tells me about how some clerks get confused about logging credits and debits. I think if one studied that in a single accounting class, say as part of a business degree, and then didn’t get to use it until working as a clerk some years later, one might have the principle embedded without really understanding how to apply it. My wife is a wizard at it, and understands what to do with any bit of financial information she has to deal with. I am sure there came a point after accumulating lots of accounting experience, where she “understood” the overall system as well as understanding bits and pieces all along the way.

So the model is that we retain information with one part of consciousness, while a more central part is trying to integrate that into the deeper retention mode of understanding. That is why it is very possible to pass a test on information one doesn’t yet understand.

Perhaps I have made this too simplistic by trying to assign an experience to each type of retention. Perhaps it is much more complicated than that? Perhaps a single experience that I would label "taking the CPA" involves all three aspects of consciousness? In this case it almost seems to be some fusion of embedded retention and mentality engendered integration. Am I misunderstanding these concepts? Initially, I was going to suggest an example for every category would be helpful but trying to assign a clean-cut experience to each one may actually be the problem.

You’ve not made it simplistic at all; actually, you are thinking like I am recommending with the empirical induction model. If you recall, my criticism of philosophy, and especially metaphysics, is that often it is too rationalistic and/or too speculative. An important aspect to the idea of empirical induction is to link experience to reason in every way one can. Yes, we are still theorizing, but at least it is guided and restrained by experience.

In the case of sensation, retention and integration, I proposed those after reflecting on my own experience with my consciousness both in terms of how it “looks” in union and how it works for me daily. From my experience, I’ve come to believe consciousness is illumination, with the counterbalanced periphery and core I modeled. That model serves as the metaphysical design behind human consciousness, its metastructure. Assuming (for modeling purposes) the metastructure is correct, then I reasoned it must be intertwined with the nervous system, and the nervous system should reflect that. Observing the left and right brain, one can see they are dedicated to activity that could be associated with the metastructure I proposed of concentration and sensitivity differentiation; also in line with the metastructure is how the senses seem to provide a sensitivity surrounding while inside we concentrate (or not) on information the senses are physically detecting. The metastructural idea of “embedded” is paralleled by memory, and so on.

So trying to relate my explanation to your own experience is exactly what I hope people will do (and after all, that’s how I came up with it myself). That is the best test in my opinion for an empirical induction model, especially for consciousness since we are consciousness ourselves and can easily contemplate it if we want to.

2. This model involves panpsychism which makes the claim that all things have psychic properties. In one part of your post you made a distinction between "life" and other forms of matter. I believe you say that non biological matter has not been shown to be able to self organize and build upon itself layers of complexity. It can replicate but eventually repeats the same patterns. But in light of your model and accepting that all matter is created by and from consciousness, are we really saying that non biological matter cannot self organize or are we saying that it chooses not to because it isn't the most fruitful path for emergence? I don't want to put words into your mouth so I'm asking the question in this way to make sure I understand.

If you look at Diagram 8, you can see I do have the universe within the panpsychic realm, but that doesn’t mean matter is conscious. If I had made that drawing correct, it would resemble the human model of consciousness; and to be conscious, according to the illumination model, requires the three dimensions of sensitivity, concentration, and the undifferentiated core. Although I didn’t say so in my original post, I think the human nervous system simulates the panpsychic metastructure, and projects a miniversion of that through biology:

SEE DIAGRAM 9

Diagram 9 has the core much larger because it is assumes lots of evolution has taken place. There is also an area between the extremes of polarization I call the interpolar field, and that’s where I have the universe is located. That field is an area between the polar extremes of concentration and sensitivity differentiation, a zone of harmonized convergent-divergent forces. In the drawing notice the representation of the extreme limits of contraction and expansion. It means that in differentiation we should anticipate a tightening of illumination convergence at the extreme inside border of concentration, and (to counterbalance the density of convergence) a significant extension of illumination divergence at the extreme outside border. The interpolar field sits in between these two polar extremes and is created by the pull of each differentiated realm on either side of it:

SEE DIAGRAM 10

That area is where I suggest the universe is situated. If so, then every single aspect of the universe – quantum factors, nuclear forces, atomic configurations, gravity, relativity, the constancy of light speed, energy, time etc. -- should be able to be explained by interpolar field dynamics (I think I can explain them too). For example, consider the Big Bang:

SEE DIAGRAM 11

Interpreting the drawing from the bottom, the Big Bang is explained as due to the convergence of an area of the interpolar field (which, because concentration is basis of the illuminative entity, should be possible). There is convergence until the point of the Big Bang, and then the universe is in the grip of divergence. Matter is interpolar field illumination still compressed, and energy is the force of decompression both in between large masses of matter of galaxies causing expansion (i.e., “dark energy”) and also that trapped inside the tiny differentiated oscillators we call atoms (the wave in the center of each figure represents vibrancy accentuated by compression to cause oscillation). If so, it is obvious why we cannot observe energy itself, but merely it’s effect as movement power.

However, to answer your question, since in my model I describe matter as compressed, oscillating, differentiated illumination of the interpolar field, and since each bit of matter (atoms and other particles) lacks its own evolving core of illumination, then matter is not conscious even if it is under the influence of consciousness.

(I've answered your third question two posts from here. )

 

[Les Sleeth]

Marcus, it was just that Les had posted about going back to The Child, and what the Child feels, and I just wanted to point out that as a Child I didn't follow the program. My experiences then seem like my experiences here and now. I couldn't get anybody interested in the fact that the Moon is often visible in the daytime, although the Bible defines it as a light to light the night.

For that matter when I look at my 3 year old granddaughter, I can see she's a little materialist from the git-go. She's all about naive physics, and labelling, and counting.

It seems too bad that we may feel we have to choose between the two realms. I don't feel that way now, but I remember what I was first attracted to as a child put me at odds with physicalistic understanding. We lived in the country, and I used to go out at night and spend hours looking up at the universe. I wondered what its Source was, and became obsessed with that. I was forced to go to church, so in Sunday school I kept trying to turn every scripture around so we could talk more about the Source. Sadly, no one knew anything about it experientially; in fact most of them didn't even know why they believed what they did, which is why I became an atheist at age 11 (later I decided that because religion is silly doesn't mean there isn't "something more" than physics).

Now, here at Pf, the physicalist perspective tends to be content with the fact that the universe is here, and studying it (which is a good thing). Where did it come from? Well, maybe a quantum fluctuation did it, even though that is about as credible as Adam, Eve, and the garden of Eden. Still, I understand the interest.

I theorize some of us are born with certain predilections, and that might come to dominate what we focus on early in life. But now as an adult, I've found that understanding the physical nature of the universe is fun, and doesn't interfere even slightly with my inner practice. Likewise, I can't understand how experiencing more deeply what's inside should interfere with understanding the physical universe.

You say that "as a Child I didn't follow the program." Good for you, neither did I. But I would bet my inheritance (if I had one) that if you were a healthy child (I mostly mean psychologically) you were open and happy like all healthy children. I'd bet you can see it in your grandchild right now, no matter what her predisposition for understanding is. That is the child I was referring to.

My point is, there is our intellect and brain, and there is how we feel. We both might go to the ocean that's roaring about 9 miles away from where I live, and I might enjoy it so deeply I can't speak, and you might sit there trying to figure out what the white stuff is all over that huge rock out in the water. If a person can do both, that is wonderful. But if a person has become so obsessed with trying to figure out how everything works, or so spaced out from getting off on the ocean (or whatever), that he's lost touch with the wholeness of his nature, then I think that's too bad.

The inner experience, when it is real, is a method for turning inward to experience more deeply one's being. It enhances sensitivity to things, it brings contentment, it makes one happy. All that is good if you ask me, and should not interfere with understanding how things work.

But there is help for the intellect too, because I'd say the inner experience tends to reveal the macro view of things, the "whole." Now, that perspective when combined with reductive thinking can be quite a team.

I guess I am saying there is no reason for the two realms to be at odds even if they each have very different rules for realizing them. They are both part of the human consciousness dimension, and each offers great rewards when developed properly.

 

[Les Sleeth]

so the more materialistic you are the more sensawonda you get
(which Feynman pointed out with the example of the sunset---I get to paint a picture of it if I want and I ALSO get to understand why its red----or the example of the richness of his experience of the seashore I forget in what piece of writing----Feynmann has a memoir about his father, who ran a costume/uniform sales and rental business and seems to'v been a wise man) . . .

when you start giving abstract or immaterial explanations to the 3 year old don't you start eroding the sensawonda?----I wonda

I agree with what you included in your post, as I just posted to selfAdjoint (how did he come up with that handle anyway?), but you left out what my point is.

You can do the painting, you can see the painting, and you can understand its mechanics, just as you say. If you go to the trouble of painting it, you will also want to appreciate the experience while and after you do it.

Let's distinguish between things a bit. Painting itself involves skills, understanding of perspective, paints, etc.; seeing involves the physical senses; and of course understanding what color is relies on the intellect. All fun stuff. Van Gogh did much that, and was was so miserable he killed himself. Do you think if he could have understood about wavelengths of EM that would have brightened his day?

What was wrong with Van Gogh's appreciation? Two people can have exactly the same thing, and one experiences deep appreciation, while the other is miserable no matter what he has.

Now, it just so happens that there have been people who figured out something about the part of us that appreciates. They found a way to experience it, to actually practice experiencing it. What that does is develop and make more prevalent that part of us. It is sad to say, but it is just about the last thing most people are paying attention to, which is one reason why there are so many discontent people in the world.

Regarding the child, I wasn't talking about giving him/her abstract explanations, but rather stimulating a child's curiosity in the inner direction. I do that every chance I get with children, but I also try to get them to understand how things work. The inner thing isn't at odds with intellectual curiosity! It is the companion, the friend inside who wants to be happy when things are quiet, in solitude. It wants to be at peace and to enjoy life deeply WHILE one understands it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

3. Another question I have has to do with the general pool of knowledge that exists in the core. After reading and understanding this idea I would have guessed that this means that all things created from this "entity" would share this knowledge because the core is supposed to be homogenous. Yet you suggested later in your post that it might be possible that there is a section for dogs, cats etc. which contradicts what I would have guessed. How can the homogenous core have distinguished sections of knowledge? Is it possible that dogs do have access to knowledge of laughing and loving but just don't have the "equipment" to make any sense or use of it? To use your analogy, the same force(knowledge) is blowing into the instrument, but the instrument isn't shaped correctly to produce the potential sound(love) that the force can produce. At my level of understanding, this seems more consistent and less problematic then talking about distinctions in a homogenous core so maybe there is something I haven't understood.

I would predict that the evolution of the “whole” core and individual points within it are separate developments. I was suggesting that one might imagine certain areas would contain “points” that are related to the same level of consciousness; but now that I think about it, I don’t suppose that would be necessary since each point is developing individually.
But you raise a good point, so let me offer another diagram to develop this idea more because I think is really important to the illumination theory:

SEE DIAGRAM 12

According to the model, the core is our “heart,” it is where our center resides. In fact, the location of that element of consciousness is not really even in the physical universe. The universe, the body, the brain which teaches us to think and creates the sense of separation from the core . . . are all located in the interpolar field.

The very first time a point enters biology, it would have never experienced separation from the oneness of the core. We might suppose such lack of individuality is suited for one-celled life; looking up the scale of central nervous system life, one can see ever greater self awareness. The idea is that biology is working to individuate a point in the panpsychic core, and as it does, that point becomes more and more awake both as an individual and to what its nature really is. Taking this to the idea of union, I suggest that those instances of “enlightenment” by individuals such as the Buddha and Jesus have been their full awakening to where there own heart was located, and what it is they are.

Les, you seem to think that if science could prove something in a quantum experiment related to consciousness then consciousness would be physical. It seems obvious to me that consciousness interacts with the physical somehow. Even though we may never be able to see consciousness, you don't believe we can even seen it's causal impact? It seems you have already noticed yourself that something is missing in the emergentism view since you've taken the time to come up with your model. Perhaps the science version of seeing the same thing is simply to show that consciousness has an impact at the quantum level? Understanding "how" that mechanism works may never happen for all the reasons you suggests but it seems logical to me that science could in principle see a "difference" in results. Have I misunderstood you on this?

I meant that if a physical device could actually reveal the underlying nature of consciousness (i.e., not just its functions), then consciousness must be physical. But while considering Radar’s points I realized that consciousness and the material must connect somehow, somewhere for biology to exist, and that is likely at the quantum level. If some method were developed for observing the physical side of that connection, that would be incredibly exciting. Of course, I’d be worried that committed physicalists will interpret that connecting point as meaning quantum behavior is causing consciousness, (which seems what they are already doing with the most popular panpsychic model). The idea of what I am calling transemergence isn’t even being considered.

 

[marcus]

Marcus, it was just that Les had posted about going back to The Child, and what the Child feels, and I just wanted to point out that as a Child I didn't follow the program. My experiences then seem like my experiences here and now. I couldn't get anybody interested in the fact that the Moon is often visible in the daytime, although the Bible defines it as a light to light the night.

For that matter when I look at my 3 year old granddaughter, I can see she's a little materialist from the git-go. She's all about naive physics, and labelling, and counting.

I'm hip
mommy why are the clouds white, grandad why is the sky blue
why are the stars so little

it seems that we have both met (or been) children that didnt follow the program set out for the Child.

the underlying meaning of the word God is shut up
why is the sky blue
because God made it blue
means shut up don't ask so many questions

the 3-6 year olds I've know have been as far as I remember (in Les term) physicalist
that is to say materialist
and sometimes they have interesting minds and can ask interesting questions----not only about nature and people with their social conventions but also about language

if one of them asks what clouds are and you say the World Soul makes them so we can get rained on, well they probably won't be satisfied with that----they will keep probing. Well how does the world soul make them and why are they white and if the world soul wants them to rain why don't they always rain

when you first want to teach such children an abstract immaterial concept you probably have to use something concrete as a metaphor or example to generalize from

but it could well be that not all are such pesky question askers

I am glad you noticed that mistake in the book of genesis
gave you a good start in life
but it is great poetry----the OT is tops

 

[Les Sleeth]

the underlying meaning of the word God is shut up
why is the sky blue
because God made it blue
means shut up don't ask so many questions

. . . if one of them asks what clouds are and you say the World Soul makes them so we can get rained on, well they probably won't be satisfied with that----they will keep probing. Well how does the world soul make them and why are they white and if the world soul wants them to rain why don't they always rain

when you first want to teach such children an abstract immaterial concept you probably have to use something concrete as a metaphor or example to generalize from

but it could well be that not all are such pesky question askers

I am glad you noticed that mistake in the book of genesis
gave you a good start in life
but it is great poetry----the OT is tops

Just so you understand my position on all this, I think questions about the world deserve rational explanations, and if the question is about rain or clouds, then the answer is going to include physical factors.

Also, you might not have read what I based the modeling on for this thread, but it is the practice of a type of conscious experience, and it isn't religion. I am not religious, or "spiritual," or mysticial or whatever and never have voluntarily been. Religion isn't where I am coming from, or "beliefs" without experience, or faith, or any of that. But I have to say, if someone is answering God to every question, that is the ignorance of the person saying it, and has nothing to do with the reality of God.

The issue for this thread is the breadth and depth of human experience. When I pointed to what a child is like, maybe I didn't explain what I meant very well, so possibly that is why you've responded to something I didn't mean. That's fine I suppose if you want to change the subject from what I said, to talking about how one first learns how to think. But thinking doesn't have the slightest thing to do with what I meant.

I was trying to point to the openness of the child, the lack of conditioning; and then in a later post the natural joy of a healthy child. The child's mind is very "clean" to start off, not filled with concepts about how things are, or how things must be. That conscious state has a good side and a not so good side. The good part is that the child's mind is probably the best condition it will ever be into learn; the down side is that a child is naive and can learn things that either aren't good for him/her or is illusory.

In Zen there is a concept of "beginner's mind," where one practices returning to that open, unconditioned mind . . . back to zero. It doesn't mean to become stupid, or to forget the truths one has learned. It means to get one's mind clear of conditioning, bias, self image and egocentric illusions . . . and consequently become open.

This might sound strange, but one very powerful sort of conditioning is done by the senses. We are dependent on them for perception, and have been since birth (or before). We unabashedly participate in the sense-view of reality, and many (most people I'd say) never question the picture the senses give.

Now, they feed us information, but who is the "us" being fed? Who knows that? Socrates said "know thy self" as a secret to wisdom . . . was he talking about one's psychology, or physiology? No he wasn't, and neither were those people throughout history who undertook the practice of union. That is the empirical basis (empirical means experience) of this discussion topic, along with a type of experience other than sense experience I am suggesting gives new information about reality.

If one only uses the senses, and if the senses only reveal what's physical, then what sort of world view do you think that person will form? Physicalistic, of course. If one turns one's attention around, and learns how to more deeply experience that part of oneself which is receiving information, the "knower," then one gets a whole new experience and entirely new information to add to what the senses have been giving.

There is nothing mystical about that, or weird. That potential is present within each person; it is part of our make up, so it isn't unnatural either. Some people have become so skilled at that inner-view, they've attained it permanently; probably the Buddha was the first (no, I'm not a Buddhist). It didn't make such individuals incapable outwardly, it just added a dimension to their consciousness.

If someone only wants to rely on their senses, that's fine with me. And if all they want to look at is physical stuff, that's fine with me too (although I admit I get frustrated at physicalist metaphysical assumptions -- but then I feel the same way about religious assumptions). The only objection I've had is when they go on to talk and behave as though the physical is all there is when they've neither investigated the long history of inner achievements nor have they attempted to experience it themselves. Maybe they should say instead that the physical is all they want or care to know. Of course, I can't figure out why anyone wouldn't want to know more about themselves; I mean really, what is the risk? There is only an up side to self knowledge.

 

[Moonrat]

In Zen there is a concept of "beginner's mind," where one practices returning to that open, unconditioned mind . . . back to zero..

Returning to the mystery, the melting and synthesis of the objective and subjective and all distinctions inbetween.

 

[Royce]

Les, once again, GOOD WORK; and you leave me nothing to say or add that hasn't been said before. I can only affirm that my understanding of my experiences are much the same as your model. I see it slightly different, a different slant and would use different terminology but it is in essence the same.

A speculative question, if I may; could the outward pointing , pulsating portion of the illumination be the interactive connectivity of physical life, such as we humans, and the core be the central, dare I say it here, constant oneness of the universe, that which I would call God, but which you do not, with which we are all part of and connected to?

 

[Moonrat]

could the outward pointing , pulsating portion of the illumination be the interactive connectivity of physical life, such as we humans, and the core be the central, dare I say it here, constant oneness of the universe, that which I would call God, but which you do not, with which we are all part of and connected to?

beautiful question if you do not mind me saying..for withouth the 'outward pointing, pulsating portion' how could we ever connect in the first place? this outward connection is what creates *physical life*...as physical life creates more inward that which *connects*

 

[Les Sleeth]

A speculative question, if I may. . .

NO. Speculation is not allowed in this thread.

. . . could the . . . [be] that which I would call God, but which you do not . . . ?

Thank you for your comments and questions Royce. I want to answer you in two parts. The first part is about why I have described things as I have, and then I’ll interpret your question in terms of my model.

You are right that I avoid using the term God; and as I said to Marcus, I don’t like using terms like “spiritual” or anything else people already have a lot of concepts and opinions about. You know how it is, you say “God” and everyone starts talking about how dumb creationism is, or how illogical religious believers are.

Yet I have had this union experience. I’ve also studied a lot of people in the past famous for their innerness and discovered many of them too practiced union. Is it a coincidence that the most powerful reports about “God” stem from those in union. Jesus, for instance, said, “I and my Father are one.” But what does it mean? Those who looked at things “gross” as Jesus put it, interpreted “Father” to mean an actual father! Someone interpreted “reborn” as meaning climbing back in the womb and . . . Many think resurrection means rising up physically from the dead, etc.

It’s nearly impossible to get around such concepts when talking about God or spirituality. So my approach has been to try take the experience I think individuals had which led to their particular expression, and make that as distinct as possible from the words someone uses to describe the experience because, of course, words and concepts are not the experience itself. Consider these words by the 11th century monk Benard, “I confess, then, to speak foolishly that the Word has visited me—indeed very often. But, though He has frequently come into my soul, I have never at any time been aware of the moment of His coming . . . You will ask then how, since His track is thus traceless, I could know that He is present? Because He is living and full of energy.”

Now, what is the “Word,” what is his “soul,” how does Benard know it is a “him”? Those are terms in use in his day, in his culture. We could write it off as religious babbling, except there is something about his statement which seems linked to personal experience. When he says it is “living and full of energy,” it conveys a definite “impression” of something experiential don’t you think?

Likewise, another 11th century monastic (German) Hildegarde said, “. . . my soul has always beheld this Light; and in it my soul soars to the summit of the firmament and into a different air . . . the brightness which I see is not limited by space and is more brilliant than the radiance round the sun. . . . . sometimes when I see it . . . I seem a simple girl again, and an old woman no more!” When I read that I feel certain something is going on in her, especially since I’ve experienced something like that myself.

I relied on Christian concepts above because they are most criticized in Western culture by science types, and modern culture seems more and more inclined toward factual, accurate descriptions. When I reported that when I experience union, it seems joined to some much bigger ocean of illumination, and that the illumination seemed “generally conscious,” I relied on terms (as best I could) that are in use today. It is a way of saying “look at the experience” and decide for yourself what it is, and to minimize the verbal/conceptual aspect.

Is that illumination continuum what others have called “God”? In my opinion it is. And also in my opinion, there is no way to prove what it is to another. They have to learn how to reach it experientially just like everyone else did who has reported what the experience was “like” for them.

. . . could the outward pointing, pulsating portion of the illumination be the interactive connectivity of physical life, such as we humans, and the core be the central, dare I say it here, constant oneness of the universe, that which I would call God, but which you do not, with which we are all part of and connected to?

Of course I don’t really know how creation and consciousness are organized. The model I presented is inductively projected from the experience I have, along with others’ reports, and trying to make the way the known universe works fit with both my/others’ experience and the projected model. But relying on my model, then I’d have to make some adjustments to your statement to fit the model.

The illumination model relies foremost on my experience of brightness in union practice, and the consistent reports of brightness by other practitioners in the past. The concept of an infinite illumination continuum is part of the model because it solves a HUGE problem for theorists. It’s not that I have actually experienced it being infinite, but only that the continuum is big. But it is a practical element because is gives an answer for the source of the raw material needed to create a universe. If everything material, from energy and forces to atoms, are a form of some absolutely basic “stuff,” which was never created and can’t be destroyed, and which has the mutable potential to take all the forms present observed in the universe, then we have a means to solve the first cause problem. That is, the first cause is present in the mutability potentials of the infinite, eternal illumination continuum which has always been there.

I know most people imagine that what you call God, but which I am trying to avoid saying and so will call panpsychic consciousness, is eternal, infinite and therefore all-powerful and all-knowing. But if panpsychic consciousness is omniscient, it presents a serious logic problem which (for some reason) reminds me of the ultraviolet catastrophe which plagued pre-quantum physicists. If panpsychic consciousness has always existed, then as predicted it must be all-knowing; but if it is all knowing, then how can anything new in the realm of consciousness be happening? Everything that can be done will have been done, everything that can be known will have been known. Yet here we are learning and developing, and we are consciousness.

So it is more logical that the panpsychic consciousness had a beginning. If we assume the illumination continuum is infinite and eternal, then it must follow that panpsychic consciousness developed within that, and so is finite in size and power too. Finite in general means panpsychic consciousness is not omniscient, but is rather a learning consciousness. Of course, even if the panpsychic consciousness hasn’t always existed, it can be “fowardly” eternal, which means it could have been evolving for a time span we can’t even imagine, and could be a size that is also too vast to comprehend. After all, with infinity and eternity in which to develop, there is no limitation to learning and growth.

I set that up to answer your question because panpsychic consciousness needs to be finite in order for my model to make sense. It also needs to have some sort of internal structure that differentiates it from the general, unconscious illumination continuum . . . something that makes it both conscious and an entity. I’ve proposed a type differentiation based on polarity; that is, some quantity of illumination in the infinite chaotic illumination continuum has organized itself. The basis of the organization is a periphery that is counterbalanced into two phases: an extended or diverged phase, and a concentrated or converged phase. There is an oscillatory tension between these phases which causes the entire periphery to pulsate (so the “pulse” is not outward oriented . . . it’s the diverged phase that is, and which is gives us our outward-oriented sensitivity). But in the center is a pure core of illumination, which is not subject to differentiation or pulsing. It is still.

With those three aspects, we have the means to model consciousness as it works in us. In other words, I have assumed that our consciousness is a mini-version of the panpsychic consciousness. I studied my own consciousness, both looking at its apparent polar structure and then, in union, its illuminative nature. I also noticed the pulse, and how it seemed linked to my autonomic system, and so postulated that it is through the larger, more-powerful pulse of panpsychic consciousness that a link is established between it and biology. Further, we and the universe are within the panpsychic entity; our core is a “point” inside the panpsychic consciousness core, and our biology developed in the polarized periphery of the panpsychic entity (as Diagram 12 and 10 above shows); finally (to give the overall perspective) panpsychic consciousness itself is within the infinite, eternal illumination continuum (as Diagram 8 indicates).

 

[Royce]

Actually, Les, I like your terminology and think them very apt and descriptive, at least to me. "Illumination" is very apropos and for some reason resonates with me. I too have become very reluctant to use the words "spirit" and "God" here in the PF's because of the knee jerk reactions they invoke. Rather than getting the point or thought across people are too busy reacting to the words to get the meaning or idea.

In my experiences, both with illumination, the Light, and with the void or oneness I never considered or felt an impression or perception of size or time or infinite or finite. The main experience was of light and oneness, of being free and unfettered, love and belonging (I was HOME), peace and joy. I also often felt the presence of an entity, the benevolent boss, which I took to be G_d. Thinking back I do seem to remember a pulsation but that it and I were in complete harmony and it was really a barely noticeable, unremarkable, acceptable part of the whole experience. I may have projected some of my preconceived notions into the experiences and it was of course unique to me as your experiences are to you.

I do still have a strong feeling, almost conviction that the outer realm is the interactive connectivity between the inner core, the oneness and biological life in the outer core. Possibly I am projecting or trying too hard but your model is very compelling and very much in harmony with my experiences.
It is almost as if your model is helping me recall facets of my experiences that I did not notice before and did not know that I knew until your image model drew them forth into my conscious memory. I'm sure you have had similar experiences where you hear,see, read something for the first time and your first thought is;" Oh yeah. I knew that." As for the rest, I'll have reread it and think about it for a while. I like it, your concepts, impressions and descriptions; but, I have to digest them for awhile before I can make any more comment about them. This is very deep stuff here, at the very core of our existence and being.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Thinking back I do seem to remember a pulsation but that it and I were in complete harmony and it was really a barely noticeable, unremarkable, acceptable part of the whole experience.

When I read that my entire body experienced a rush. That subtle thing you noticed, that is the background, or "breath of God" as past practitioners called it (hey, if Hawking can talk about the mind of God, then . . . ). It is exciting to hear when someone has felt it. Because it is so subtle, often people don't know that focusing on the subtle thing can carry one deep into a realm that awaits behind everything apparent.

 

[hypnagogue]

Les, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and thoroughness with which you've conducted this discussion. I would like to throw my hat into the ring with some questions and comments of my own. I am sympathetic with many of your ideas, so if it seems I am being critical here it is only with respect to those aspects that I take most immediate issue with.

The issue that immediately springs out at me in the very first post is your characterization of consciousness as an essentially spherical structure. More generally, you use the concepts of space and structure in your non-physical, metaphysical picture (for instance, the location of the universe within the illumination continuum). Do you mean such structural/spatial pictures to be taken literally or metaphorically? It seems to me that structural and spatial relations ultimately belong in the arena of physical phenomena. For instance, philosophical ruminations on the difficulties of integrating consciousness with the physical picture of reality include the (instrospectively empirical) observations that consciousness (as a whole) seems to have no spatial extension or location or shape-- indeed, no real spatial character at all. I wonder if it might be more fruitful to include space and time themselves (in addition to mass, charge, and the like) as constructs ultimately originating in, or intimately tied into, non-physical phenomena rather than situating the non-physical basis in spatiotemporal terms.

I also notice that you characterize retention, or memory, as a property of the illumination continuum. Here I have a similar concern as above. While there is nothing essentially logically incorrect with assigning illumination the function of memory, it seems to me that memory as such is a purely functional phenomenon and accordingly is more at home in the physical realm. Surely the experience of memory must be non-physical for the same reason any conscious, subjective experience must be non-physical, but the functional underpinnings of the process are readily amenable to the structure of the physical world.

Perhaps an analogy would be fruitful here. Assume for the sake of argument that we have a computer C that is not conscious, but which is programmed with a neural algorithm designed to mimic the function of the neurons in a human brain responsible for memory retention. (The existence of such specialized memory neurons is readily demonstrated by brain lesion cases.) C, then, not only can remember past inputs, but remembers them in much the same fashion as a human remembers his inputs-- repeated exposure improves C's memory, but C's memory will gradually fade in the absence of future exposures, etc. Thus the process of retention and even the specific patterns it takes on are entirely capable of being carried out by purely extrinsic/relational/physical means. What differentiates C's memory from a human's memory is that C will not subjectively experience its recalled memory, ex hypothesi-- but this is a question of subjective experience, not of retention per se. Ultimately it is the same scenario as, say, visual perception-- the story of photon detection can be told in terms of physics and neurons, while the story of visual experience needs something extra. Likewise, the story of memory retention can be told in terms of physics and neurons, while it is the story of experiencing memory that needs something extra. I believe your illumination continuum is poised to provide that 'something extra,' but I don't think it should bleed out into physical territory when there is no conceptual need for it. If it does, we seem to have redundant powers of retention in our metaphysical picture. What is responsible for memory-- the patterns of neural activation, or the illumination it somehow connects to, or some combination of both? If it is some combination of both, how come we can duplicate it without recourse to the underlying illumination, e.g. in the case of the non-conscious computer?

Quick question here: you refer to energy as decompression of illumination. Do you have any picture accounting for how the compression takes place? I may have overlooked something, but if I have I'd appreciate a more explicit treatment of your ideas on this.

Lastly, I'd like to make a comment on the inner/outer dichotomy, which has been discussed at various points in this thread. In common discourse, it's customary to refer to sensual perceptions quite literally as the 'outer world,' distinct from the mind/consciousness. But on closer inspection, we find that the world that we directly perceive itself is part of our inner world. This room I am in right now appears to be outside of me, but in reality it is quite a part of me, merely projected to appear as if it is outside of me. That is, although it appears that I am situated inside this room that I subjectively experience, this room that I subjectively experience is actually situated inside my mind/consciousness. I do not doubt that I am actually situated inside an objectively existing room in a quite literal sense, but I do not come into direct, conscious contact with this objective room. I only come into direct contact with the room that I subjectively experience, which is an experience situated within my mind (metaphorically speaking) no less than my experiences of emotions are situated within my mind. My contact with the objective room is in actuality indirect, with my directly experienced conscious model of it acting as an interface or proxy for my interactions with it.

(minor edit for clarity; substance remains the same)

 

[Les Sleeth]

The issue that immediately springs out at me in the very first post is your characterization of consciousness as an essentially spherical structure. More generally, you use the concepts of space and structure in your non-physical, metaphysical picture (for instance, the location of the universe within the illumination continuum). Do you mean such structural/spatial pictures to be taken literally or metaphorically? It seems to me that structural and spatial relations ultimately belong in the arena of physical phenomena. For instance, philosophical ruminations on the difficulties of integrating consciousness with the physical picture of reality include the (introspectively empirical) observations that consciousness (as a whole) seems to have no spatial extension or location or shape-- indeed, no real spatial character at all. I wonder if it might be more fruitful to include space and time themselves (in addition to mass, charge, and the like) as constructs ultimately originating in, or intimately tied into, non-physical phenomena rather than situating the non-physical basis in spatiotemporal terms.

I don’t know if you read the three-page monistic contemplation on illumination I posted for Radar earlier. If one hasn’t thought much about monism, it isn’t immediately obvious how it would explain things like space or physics. Since in your post you ask about both, let me explain them (I’ve mixed up the order of your comments some to help me do that).

In the monistic model, there is no such thing as space, and physics has no separate reality of its own. There is only the absolute base stuff of existence: illumination. It exists everywhere, and has for all time. There is no discontinuance of it whether in infinite extension, or infinite reduction. As I labeled it in the post to Radar, the base state of illumination is in a condition of absolute homogeneity. Illumination is all there is, which means all the different things we see in the universe are shapes and manifest potentials of illumination, including space and physics.

But what does that have to do with the popular concept that “consciousness (as a whole) seems to have no spatial extension or location or shape”? Relying on my model, the reason we don’t see the extension or shape of consciousness is because the “base state” of consciousness isn’t being studied. At this point, the only thing being looked at are functions. Even the aspects of qualia and subjective experience are scrutinized only in action; where those aspects originate is not known.

I’ve suggested if one learns to experience the “foundation” of consciousness, it is there one observes shape and extension. Otherwise, it is similar to the “space” of physics, which appears to be a void to the physical senses, but which (according to my model), is really inhabited by uninterrupted illumination.

I also notice that you characterize retention, or memory, as a property of the illumination continuum. Here I have a similar concern as above. While there is nothing essentially logically incorrect with assigning illumination the function of memory, it seems to me that memory as such is a purely functional phenomenon and accordingly is more at home in the physical realm. Surely the experience of memory must be non-physical for the same reason any conscious, subjective experience must be non-physical, but the functional underpinnings of the process are readily amenable to the structure of the physical world.

I am not sure we are in agreement about what “physical” is. Structure alone does not necessarily mean physical. Physical first and foremost seems defined by particle-ness; and then, there are properties, such as fields or gravity, which appear in the presence of matter, and so are physical manifestations.

I don’t see why some portion of the illumination continuum couldn’t achieve particle-less non-physical structure. In fact, if you study my diagrams, you’ll see I propose the basis of physics is illumination fashioned into a metaphysical structure.

I don’t think it makes sense for consciousness not to have structure. If it didn’t, then consciousness would necessarily have to be chaotic and/or lack any ability whatsoever to be complex. Yet we know that isn’t the case. If we are derived from some larger pool of consciousness, then I think that has to have structure as well, and our individual consciousness likely possesses a similar sort of structuring.

Perhaps an analogy would be fruitful here. Assume for the sake of argument that we have a computer C that is not conscious, but which is programmed with a neural algorithm designed to mimic the function of the neurons in a human brain responsible for memory retention. (The existence of such specialized memory neurons is readily demonstrated by brain lesion cases.) C, then, not only can remember past inputs, but remembers them in much the same fashion as a human remembers his inputs-- repeated exposure improves C's memory, but C's memory will gradually fade in the absence of future exposures, etc. Thus the process of retention and even the specific patterns it takes on are entirely capable of being carried out by purely extrinsic/relational/physical means. What differentiates C's memory from a human's memory is that C will not subjectively experience its recalled memory, ex hypothesi-- but this is a question of subjective experience, not of retention per se. Ultimately it is the same scenario as, say, visual perception-- the story of photon detection can be told in terms of physics and neurons, while the story of visual experience needs something extra. Likewise, the story of memory retention can be told in terms of physics and neurons, while it is the story of experiencing memory that needs something extra. I believe your illumination continuum is poised to provide that 'something extra,' but I don't think it should bleed out into physical territory when there is no conceptual need for it. If it does, we seem to have redundant powers of retention in our metaphysical picture. What is responsible for memory-- the patterns of neural activation, or the illumination it somehow connects to, or some combination of both? If it is some combination of both, how come we can duplicate it without recourse to the underlying illumination, e.g. in the case of the non-conscious computer?

If you can see that “physical” is merely a shape of illumination, as is consciousness, then for the two to coexist in biology, it means there has to be some harmonization of form at their interface. A simplistic analogy is like the mist that sits on top of a lake. What is the demarcation point between the water and the mist? One can imagine (at the right temperature) there is an area where water is evaporating and mist is condensing -- back and forth.

Rather than temperature being the determining factor, imagine it is concentration, and that every physical manifestation is the result of a specific degree of “concentration” of illumination (sufficient to cause “particlization”). Also, keep in mind that illumination is modeled as “vibrant,” which means when concentrated, that vibrancy is accentuated to become oscillation. If something can be made to oscillate fast enough, it might differentiate into phases. For example, say a volume of illumination were compressed, which also makes that volume oscillate. The more it is compressed, the more it oscillates. Because compression is convergent, it means the oscillation will be a convergent-divergent cycle. Keep compressing and one might expect at some critical point, the rapidly oscillating volume would polarize into two phases: a divergent phase, and a convergent phase. The model I presented suggests that is exactly what a “particle” is – some volume of concentrated, polar differentiated illumination.

Now, panpsychic consciousness might be something similar, except one big “particle” and, according to my model, with a core of pure illumination preserved at the center. A central nervous system created to house a “point” of that conscious illumination structure would need to match the “shape” of the structure. That is why, in this model, the brain is differentiated into left and right, and why neuron organization assist with memory and other functionality; i.e., because the CSN is physically “matching” the metaphysical shape of consciousness.

As far as a computer becoming conscious, I don’t see how if we rely on my model. A computer linked to sensing devices might simulate sensitivity and retention, but what are we going to use for pure, undifferentiated illumination that is the core of consciousness?

Quick question here: you refer to energy as decompression of illumination. Do you have any picture accounting for how the compression takes place? I may have overlooked something, but if I have I'd appreciate a more explicit treatment of your ideas on this.

Yes, I did explain that. If you look at Diagrams 9, 10, and 11 along with the accompanying text, you will see that I explain compression is made possible by the concentrative phase of the panpsychic structure.

 

[honestrosewater]

Les,
Okay, I read the first page and skimmed through the rest. If you've already addressed my questions, don't feel obliged to repeat yourself, you can just refer me to the appropriate posts.
This may seem like a big step backwards, but I want to make sure we're on the same page. It should be pretty painless at least.

Why is your method necessary? Are you assuming that objective evidence is different from subjective evidence? The first possible difference between them that comes to mind is accessibility.

Assume there are two different people, Alice and Bob. Presumably, they are different because they each have exclusive access to a world of evidence: the world of their own subjective evidence. Call Alice's World of Subjective Evidence AWSE, and Bob's same BWSE. Presumably, there exists a third world of evidence to which they both have access. Call this world, the World of Objective Evidence, WOE. Presumably, Alice and Bob have access to each other (or some form of each other) through WOE. Unless I have explained something incorrectly, (I'm trying to not be "formal" but maybe my attempt is superficial?) WOE is simply where AWSE and BWSE overlap. It isn't that AWSE and BWSE are disjoint and contained within WOE. The whole relationship can be represented as a simple Venn diagram with two overlapping circles, as pictured on the left here http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VennDiagram.html with A=AWSE, B=BWSE, A \cap B=WOE. Right? Is this how you imagine things? There doesn't even have to be a "context" for the circles.

Now, what is to stop AWSE and BWSE from merging completely together, until both are one circle, WOE? I am just talking about worlds of evidence, not physical locations or anything else.
If people can share some evidence, why can they not share all evidence? If Bob and Alice share evidence for tree, leaf, branch, oak, vein, green, yellow, English, etc., why can Bob not use the evidence already in WOE to introduce evidence for maple from BWSE into WOE and thus into AWSE? By the same process, is it not possible for Bob to introduce all evidence in BWSE into AWSE through WOE?
That is, if any evidence in WOE is similar enough to be considered shared (though I wouldn't consider it to actually be identical) then all evidence accessible to either BWSE or AWSE can be made similar enough to be considered shared.

Perhaps I misunderstood your use of empirical, but it seems this is what your method attempts to do. How is your method different from the current methods by which "objective" evidence is shared? If it is assumed that objective evidence can be shared by virtue of some similarities in the nature or circumstances of people and through some reliable method, why would that same assumption exclude subjective evidence from being shared by the same reliable method? Is it just that no method of sharing subjective experience has yet been precise enough? It seems to me that scientific and artistic (objective and subjective, generically) methods of communication ultimately function the same way, but can encompass varying degrees of ambiguity/precision. They just happen to have tended toward opposite ends, for the most part.

I swear I meant to say something about physical and metaphysical, but the concepts seem rather meaningless at the moment.

 

[honestrosewater]

I'm not trying to hijack this thread. If someone deems that to be happening, please split my posts off into another thread. The reason I'm bringing this stuff up is because I think it forms the foundation of Les' method, and that foundation isn't clear to me. Perhaps you all have already clarified this in other threads that I missed. So split or edit it if appropriate.

Okay, physical and metaphysical. Would you equate physical evidence with objective evidence (the WOE) and metaphysical evidence with subjective evidence (the WSE)? (Perhaps you don't even like my above ideas, but for now I'll assume you do.) In other words, physical reality- whatever its "nature"- is evidenced in the WOE. Metaphysical reality- whatever its nature- is evidenced in the WSE. The WOE is a subset of the WSE. Thus physical evidence is a subset of metaphysical evidence. This seems to be in accord with the usual definitions of the terms.
Note that this doesn't introduce any new sets- it's just equating terms. The nature of physical or metaphysical reality still must be inferred from the evidence. I think I'm making no assumptions about the possibility of equating the evidence with the nature. That is, I'm not assuming it's either possible or impossible- I'm staying undecided for now. If I did make an assumption about this, please point it out.

Presumably, the mechanism which makes the evidence in the WOE accessible is (at least) the sensory neuron (as opposed to interneurons). The process of physical evidencing initiates (and perhaps ends) with the firing of a sensory neuron. Perhaps you would extend this mechanism to include interneurons as well. Perhaps to certain neural circuits not involving the brain (reflexes). Perhaps even to the whole nervous system. This brings up my next question: What is the mechanism that makes the evidence in the WSE accessible? I assume consciousness is the answer, but I'm wondering if you would make any further distinctions. For instance, between consciousness and the nervous system. By asking these questions, I'm trying to flesh out your hierarchy via my set model, using proper subsets and supersets. My model still contains only two sets, WSE and WOE, and these sets may even be equal, but I'm wondering if you think some metaphysical evidence cannot be physically evidenced, making the WOE a proper subset of the WSE.

Now, for the mechanism of sharing evidence between WSEs, I would turn to semiotics. Briefly, semiotics is the study of signs (as in conceptual devices, not supernatural encounters or anything). Here's a nice online text http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html and part of its description of what semiotics encompasses:

Semiotics is not widely institutionalized as an academic discipline. It is a field of study involving many different theoretical stances and methodological tools. One of the broadest definitions is that of Umberto Eco, who states that 'semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign' (Eco 1976, 7). Semiotics involves the study not only of what we refer to as 'signs' in everyday speech, but of anything which 'stands for' something else. In a semiotic sense, signs take the form of words, images, sounds, gestures and objects. Whilst for the linguist Saussure, 'semiology' was 'a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life', for the philosopher Charles Peirce 'semiotic' was the 'formal doctrine of signs' which was closely related to Logic (Peirce 1931-58, 2.227). For him, 'a sign... is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity' (Peirce 1931-58, 2.228). He declared that 'every thought is a sign' (Peirce 1931-58, 1.538; cf. 5.250ff, 5.283ff). Contemporary semioticians study signs not in isolation but as part of semiotic 'sign systems' (such as a medium or genre). They study how meanings are made: as such, being concerned not only with communication but also with the construction and maintenance of reality. Semiotics and that branch of linguistics known as semantics have a common concern with the meaning of signs, but John Sturrock argues that whereas semantics focuses on what words mean, semiotics is concerned with how signs mean (Sturrock 1986, 22). For C W Morris (deriving this threefold classification from Peirce), semiotics embraced semantics, along with the other traditional branches of linguistics:
semantics: the relationship of signs to what they stand for;
syntactics (or syntax): the formal or structural relations between signs;
pragmatics: the relation of signs to interpreters (Morris 1938, 6-7).

It's been a while since I "studied" semiotics, but you can get the basic idea by reading the first and second chapters. The basic "unit" of semiotics is the sign. You can define the sign as bridging the gap between evidence and nature or between evidence and evidence or both. IIRC much of semiotics studies the use of signs in social contexts. I'm just suggesting some of its concepts can be used in this model. For instance, incorporating the rhetorical tropes (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony) into your judgment of "good" evidence may be helpful IMO (If I remember them correctly.)
Thoughts?

 

[honestrosewater]

Okay, sorry, this will be my last post until someone responds. I just want to add a little about why I think semiotics would be helpful.
Briefly, a sign has two parts,
1) the signifier- the form the sign takes.
2) the signified- the concept represented.
There are three general types of signs (though according to the above text, Peirce created a typology with 59,049 types of signs, so you can get quite specific!). In the following examples, the signified will be the visual aspects of a person's subjective experience of a tree*, the signifier will be given. The types are:
1) Symbolic- the signifier does not resemble the signified; the relationship is arbitrary, conventional. Example: the written English word "tree".
2) Iconic- the signifier resembles the signified. Example: a painting of a tree.
3) Indexical- the signifier is directly related to the signified. Example: a photograph of a tree.

To more clearly see how this relates to the topic of this thread, specifically the sharing of subjective experiences, use a ghost instead of a tree in the examples. Better still, think of Les' experience of union and the diagrams and explanatory text Les provided.
Les may want to permit only certain types of signs in empirical induction. Or rather, Les may want to consider only certain types of signs as "evidence" in empirical induction. We would presumably have to use some iconic signs to communicate (written language).
I suspect there are important limits on what types of signs can be used to communicate subjective experience and rules for how those signs need to be related to each other (relating two different signs with one common part) to form an acceptable "chain of evidence". So I brought up semiotics because using the work of others can save a lot of time and effort. This brief explanation is just that- these concepts have been further refined.

BTW You may even disagree with my example. How is a photograph of X directly related to a person's conscious experience of X? How can a person's painting of X only resemble their conscious experience of X? I'm not even sure I agree with my example, but I was trying to make this brief.

*Edit: in "the visual aspects of a person's subjective experience of a tree" a tree was meant as a "physical" tree, composed of living plant cells.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les,
Okay, I read the first page and skimmed through the rest. If you've already addressed my questions, don't feel obliged to repeat yourself, you can just refer me to the appropriate posts. . . Why is your method necessary? Are you assuming that objective evidence is different from subjective evidence? The first possible difference between them that comes to mind is accessibility. . . . I swear I meant to say something about physical and metaphysical, but the concepts seem rather meaningless at the moment.

Hi Honest,

I wanted to think about your post before answering. I afraid I can’t see the relevance of semiotics to the theme of this thread, nor how Venn diagrams fit in the model I presented. You certainly have an active mind though!

If you are still interested I’ll give you my two cents worth on a couple of your other ideas and comments. First let me orient you to the theme of this thread. The overall concept is about theoretical modeling. You are familiar I am sure with lots of theories -- works in progress where people are trying to figure out how some aspect of reality functions. Some models have more pieces in place than others; the Big Bang has several key pieces (the expanding universe, background microwave radiation, the findings of the COBE satellite, etc.), while string theory has only mathematical validity (no observed “pieces” of the model).

In metaphysics, sometimes theoretical modeling can get pretty far from evidence, unless it’s scientific modeling, which brings us to one of your questions. Metaphysics is not about subjectivity. Here’s an edited post I made from another thread explaining metaphysics:

“To the person casually using the word, quite often they use metaphysical to mean something ethereal or spiritual. But that isn't really what it means, even if to claim existence is say, all spirit, is a metaphysical statement.

We had a pretty heated debate here when someone asked if everything can be explained/accounted for with physics. Those who said yes were making a metaphysical statement because they were saying the basis of existence is purely physical. When we talk about general conditions of existence behind apparent reality, that are causing what we can see and measure and experience -- that is metaphysics. It doesn't have to be something spiritual, or non-physical; it doesn't even have to be true about all existence. It could refer just to conditions behind one particular aspect of reality.

Something one hears all the time around here is that any explanation that isn't scientific is worthless, or ‘nonsense’ as I've seen many times. That view is itself metaphysical, what some call ‘scientism,’ in the sense that it assumes reality is such that only science can reveal it. A similar example is my friend who is a historian, and who evaluates everything as history. I have yet another friend, educated as an economist, who likes to tell me ‘everything is economics.’"

So if a model attempts to explain what is behind and causing appearances, then that is a metaphysical model. Now, when it comes to modeling something like a creator, or cosmic consciousness, or anything non-physical (and therefore unavailable to the senses), that modeling has a reputation for being pure speculation. If, for example, some kind of huge or omnipresent consciousness has been involved in the formation of the universe, how do we model it?

A model always starts with premises, and so what I suggested for any model, whether it is a physical model or a creator model, is that its premises should be supported by evidence. If they aren’t, then what basis is there for evaluating the model? I also suggested a metaphysical model should be consistent with how things we can see work, hopefully help explain those things better than they are without the model, and that the model isn’t contradicted by even one thing we know to be true. In this way a metaphysical model can be made more realistic. I then offered to demonstrate this technique on something that seems it must be purely speculative, which is the idea of panpsychism, or the idea that some greater consciousness has assisted in the origination and development of the universe.

That brings us to the issue of subjectivity. I am not going to get into your questions about the details of the nervous system, but what I suggested in this thread is that possibly a general consciousness pool exists, and maybe our universe is within that. The idea of the central nervous system, then, is that it was evolved as a result of the general consciousness’s “emergent striving” to emerge here on Earth, through physicalness, as individual (i.e., versus “general”) consciousnesses.

What is consciousness? I portray it as being aware that one is aware. We are aware of light, for example, because the eyes relay that information. But a human doesn’t just “detect” light, a more central part of consciousness knows that it detected light. I modeled that “knower” as the core of consciousness, and went on to claim that it is the gradual development of the core knower as one ages that is the basis of subjectivity.

Okay, so as you point out, there are billions of little subjective human beings walking about. We can see there is a world outside of us, we can see we have a body which is equipped to feed us information about that “outside” world, and then there is us, consciousness, inside the brain somewhere receiving that information. As you imply, all the humans living in this universe share that universe, and can receive information about it; but also, that information once it’s been received by us, becomes private. No one can get into your consciousness and receive your information, or be where you exactly are consciously. In that sense, because each conscious point is unique, and receives information only it can receive from the spot it occupies, that helps to create the individuals we are, or as I called it, to individuate us.

That information coming to us from the “outside” is objective because others have access to it. That information which is inside is subjective. Because the “outside” world is physical, we normally think of objective information as physical information. Because we perceive the outside world with our senses, that is how we study physicalness, and that is why empiricism relies on sense data to study and interpret the physical world. I can look at a tree, and you can look at tree, and that is one way I can know if what you say corresponds to some actual aspect of reality.

As you can see from the definitions of metaphysics and subjectivity, it isn’t accurate to say metaphysical is subjective because a metaphysical perspective of physicalism, for example, has a great amount of objective data available.

However, because of the apparently non-physical nature expected for a “general” consciousness pool, for this thread a certain subjective experience was relied on for evidence. As evidence I cited reports of people who’ve practice “union.” Their experience is subjective, not “objective” as science demands, but I claimed that such inner experience might provide information that the senses cannot detect, and so when added to a sense data, might allow us to create a better model.

So, that’s what this thread is about. I used a specific subjective experience to try to strengthen a normally weakly-supported metaphysical theory, and then created a model using that evidence along with what relevant objective information we have.

 

[honestrosewater]

Okay, I'm not disagreeing with you yet- I just need to make sure we are talking about the same things. I realize this is rather tedious, and I appreciate your patience and help. BTW I'm making up most of this as I type, so I can't just refer you to an already developed model to save time. Trust me, if I could, I would.

When we talk about general conditions of existence behind apparent reality, that are causing what we can see and measure and experience -- that is metaphysics. It doesn't have to be something spiritual, or non-physical; it doesn't even have to be true about all existence. It could refer just to conditions behind one particular aspect of reality.

Your "behind apparent reality" is my "nature", and your "apparent reality" is my "evidence".

In other words, physical reality- whatever its "nature"- is evidenced in the WOE. Metaphysical reality- whatever its nature- is evidenced in the WSE.

So you are saying that I shouldn't speak of metaphysical and physical realities but of metaphysical and physical models. The models are only using our evidence in such a way as to give us insights into the nature of our evidence- the nature of the reality "behind" our evidence. In other words, the models are used to assign additional meaning to our evidence. One such meaning is physicalness- existence in a physical reality.

To clarify that, let me run through some of my assumptions/definitions. The phrase "conscious experience" can be used individually, collectively, and generally. That is, we can speak of individual, unique experiences, as in "seeing a live tree". After seeing more live trees, we can speak of collective experience, as in "seeing live trees". And after seeing things other than live trees, we can speak of general experience, as in "seeing". Conscious experience is what I mean by evidence.
All evidence is subjective. At least some evidence is objective in addition to being subjective. Evidence becomes objective when two people establish a correspondence between their subjective experience. We can establish this correspondence in several ways: by being in each other's presence and pointing to something, calling what we are pointing to a tree, associating the verbal word tree with the written word tree, etc. This is where signs and sign systems (chains of evidence) come in- signs are the mechanisms of establishing correspondence; being in each other's presence and pointing to something, calling what we are pointing to a tree, and associating the verbal word tree with the written word tree are all instances of creating and using signs. And tieing those signs together creates a sign system.

Perhaps this seems like I'm going too far back, but what are models if not sign systems, chains of evidence? A physical or metaphysical model can be explicitly and precisely described by explicitly and precisely describing the chain of evidence- each sign that is used in the model and the connections between them. Doing this for each model would be a monumental task, but I suspect much of the process can be generalized. This is similar to what is done in formal logic, except that semiotics goes further. For instance, logic takes certain terms as undefined. The term "number" may be left undefined in some formal logic system. But the term "number" is part of a sign- the signifier. Semiotics acknowledges what logic does not or cannot- that the term "number" means something to the person using it- more than it means in the formal logic system; A formal sign system can describe that meaning- the signified- and trace that meaning back to a piece of individual, collective, or general evidence and make apparent whether that evidence is objective or not.
This tracking of meaning could be important in describing a person's reasoning as a formal system. What does the term "number" mean to the mathematician using it? Maybe this is why Penrose fails in trying to model human reasoning as a sound formal system- er, sorry, I have several things going on in my head right now- I don't mean to let them all intrude here. I'll stop this train and respond to the rest of your post. I just have to say that I have a strong suspicion that the distinction between individual, collective, and general evidence is the crucial distinction to make, and signifying individual evidence is the crucial step.

If, for example, some kind of huge or omnipresent consciousness has been involved in the formation of the universe, how do we model it?

What I am suggesting is that if someone has experienced this omnipresent consciousness, that person can use a formal sign system to model it, making the model more than purely speculative. Formal and informal sign systems are used when someone describes the taste of something to someone who has never tasted it. And when someone describes a perfect circle to someone else. And when two people agree about the color of a shirt or the mass of a photon. It's all the same process of linking together signs. Part of the process has already been formalized by logic. Part of the process has already been accepted by physical science. But logic stops short of incorporating all the signified parts of the signs. And physical science stops short of incorporating evidence not available to the senses. So you just need to create a model that uses logical and scientific methods and incorporates what they do not. I think a formal sign system is just the thing to do it. You can then test the system for soundness, completeness, etc. Well, I suspect you would be able to, at least. I haven't actually worked all of this out- I'm developing this idea as I'm writing.

What is consciousness? I portray it as being aware that one is aware. We are aware of light, for example, because the eyes relay that information. But a human doesn’t just “detect” light, a more central part of consciousness knows that it detected light. I modeled that “knower” as the core of consciousness, and went on to claim that it is the gradual development of the core knower as one ages that is the basis of subjectivity.

This knowing that you know is what I'm dealing with in another thread. Actually, for now, I'm just trying to figure out how you can know that you know a statement is true in different kinds of formal systems, but I intend to extend it to knowing about your observations/"conscious experience"/evidence. You may be interested in reading http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/penrose.html article by Chalmers, especially "2. Penrose's Second Argument".

As you imply, all the humans living in this universe share that universe, and can receive information about it;

I'm not sure what you mean. I assumed information (evidence) could be shared between two WSEs and called the set of that shared evidence the WOE. Adding a third WSE would give you at least a second WOE which may or may not share evidence with the first WOE. Between Alice, Bob, and Cathy, you would get WOEs AB, AC, BC, and ABC, some of which may be empty and so on, I'm sure you get the picture. (BTW I mean "sharing" as "having in common", just a state of affairs, not an action.) For the WOE to be nonempty, some weaker form of your statement would have to be true. If a WOE was equivalent to a WSE, some weaker form would be true. But I wasn't equating evidence with nature or being. The WSE is only part of being human- sharing evidence isn't the same as sharing what I think you would call your "point of consciousness". So instead of "living in this universe" I would say "being evidenced in the WOE" perhaps or "being partially evidenced in the WOE". People would have to infer the nature from the evidence and this may involve induction. Though presumably you can deductively infer your own nature from your own evidence. I'm not sure what that entails, it gets tricky. I would have to consider it further, but I want to finish this post some time today.
Anyway, yes, I do personally suspect that your statement is true.

I can look at a tree, and you can look at tree, and that is one way I can know if what you say corresponds to some actual aspect of reality.

Exactly. And the same process is involved in exchanging abstract ideas. We agree that we cannot draw a perfect circle nor a line of infinite length, right? These things have a "nonphysical" nature. Yet formal languages can describe these things in such a way that different people can know they are talking about precisely the same things (given some assumptions, of course) without ever having pointed to the same perfect circle or infinite line in each other's presence. You and I can talk informally about trees and come to know that we are talking about the same thing (to a certain degree of precision) without ever having pointed to the same tree in each other's presence. Physicists can talk about photons and know they are talking about precisely the same thing without ever having pointed to the same photon in each other's presence. So why can't you develop a formal sign system that describes union in such a way that different people can know they are talking about precisely the same thing (given some assumptions, of course) without ever having pointed to the same union in each other's presence. If evidence of perfect circles, infinite lines, trees, and photons is acceptable, why would evidence of union not also be acceptable?
I'm saying that our ability to share evidence of these things depends not on the nature of the things but on our system of communication. All of our systems of communication- whether they internally ackowledge it or not- use signs- they are sign systems. I think what you are doing is the same as what could be accomplished by a formal sign system.

However, because of the apparently non-physical nature expected for a “general” consciousness pool, for this thread a certain subjective experience was relied on for evidence. As evidence I cited reports of people who’ve practice “union.” Their experience is subjective, not “objective” as science demands, but I claimed that such inner experience might provide information that the senses cannot detect, and so when added to a sense data, might allow us to create a better model.

Exactly what a formal sign system could do- be a theory incorporating all evidence- subjective and objective- bringing it all together under the same theory. Kind of like a TOE for evidence. The theory would still be inductive if it spoke to the nature of things, I'm not suggesting otherwise- well, not yet. There is possibly an interesting "out" if a person's reasoning could be modeled by a formal sign system. A formal sign system could potentially be you in an indirect, incomplete way- it would actually just represent all of your knowledge and such so it wouldn't actually be you- but "be you" sounds more impressive. I haven't much more than an inkling of how this would work. But the system would include your knowledge about yourself- and if you knew that you were conscious, you could possibly know that other people are conscious by virtue of your shared evidence which the system would fully and precisely describe. If you could demonstrate your own consciousness to yourself, the consciousness of others could follow. I mean "know" in the strongest way- and as true justified belief. And I mean "true" in the strongest way. Anyway, that was a bunch of BIG "ifs" and "possiblies". I just get so excited I can't contain myself sometimes.

There's some link I still feel I haven't made quite clear enough yet, but I'll stop here and continue to look for it.

 

[honestrosewater]

BTW I recognize the difference between pointing to a tree and pointing to a creator of the universe. The creator of the universe is not accessible through the senses. Fine. And so the distinction between physical and metaphysical is drawn. Great. But I am talking about shared evidence*- evidence which can be gained through conscious experience and physically evidenced through the senses (i.e. communicated). Being physically evidenced is not the same as physically existing. I gave examples of things which metaphysically exist and can be physically evidenced- and physically evidenced precisely and consistently- abstract ideas. Sorry for going on and on, but I need to clarify the things about which I am not confused.

*I see now that I was wrong in equating conscious experience with evidence. Evidence is actually the affirmative statement of a conscious experience (i.e. the knowledge of such an experience). You can make such a statement to yourself or to others, as in "I saw a tree" or "I want some pizza" or "Pizza gives me heatburn". A sign system establishing correspondence between evidence would include such statements and others like "Pizza is a kind of food made by rolling out some dough...", "Dough is a mixture of flour, water, eggs, ...", "Flour is white, dry,..." and so on, all tied together in some way. But a formal sign system would, well, formalize the whole process of construcitng and relating those statements and their signs. It would also, if you constructed it to, rule out contradictions and such.
I thought that metaphysical things were unprovable, but I'm beginning to doubt that (well, unprovable in some system, I should say). There is already a system that at least comes close- human reasoning. A system modelling human reasoning can possibly be proved to be everything one can reasonably ( ) demand such a system to be. Such a system would describe what it is like. And again, signifying individual experience is the crucial step since without it, whiteness and dryness would have to be left undefined. And again, I am straying from the topic- but because I see them as so closely related.

Edit: Briefly, I think your goal of stengthening metaphysical theories can be accomplished by formalizing your communication system. And I think such a formalization would involve formally modelling your own system of reasoning (reasoning about your knowledge). And I think a formal sign system would do the job.
Wait, I think I know your response: Prove it. Argh.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Briefly, I think your goal of stengthening metaphysical theories can be accomplished by formalizing your communication system. And I think such a formalization would involve formally modelling your own system of reasoning (reasoning about your knowledge). And I think a formal sign system would do the job.

Wait, I think I know your response: Prove it. Argh.

I didn't mean to imply that semiotics have no relevance to theoretical modeling, I just meant that it just wasn't what this thread is about.

Beyond that (in regard to semiology) I'd say that each of us have to rely on our strengths and interests, and formal sign systems isn't one of mine. If you read how I write and think, you can see I am continuously trying to relate things to my and others' experiences. I like to make things concrete rather than abstract, and I want to stay as close to experience as possible because I believe that is where all knowledge lies.

Lately Hypnagogue and I have been disagreeing, and I'd attribute it to exactly the sort of the difference between someone who is comfortable, and even prefers, abstract thought, and someone (me) who likes it concrete and experience-based. I think you can communicate with more people that way, while abstractness leaves most people behind in the dust.

I can see you are quite the abstracter! Science, math, programming . . .all of those areas needs people good at that, so you are certainly at the right website. I am a bit out of place here, but they tolerate me anyway so far. Anyway, most of what you said in your last posts I can't disagree with, you make valid points. The only thing I can say for certain is that developing a formal sign system is the opposite way I want to go since I prefer to make abstract ideas more concrete.

 

[honestrosewater]

I am a bit out of place here, but they tolerate me anyway so far.

I appreciate your presence here. And I'm clearly not alone in that.

The only thing I can say for certain is that developing a formal sign system is the opposite way I want to go since I prefer to make abstract ideas more concrete.

It seems this is the link I didn't make clear. A formal sign system would include both "abstract" (implication, equivalence, uniqueness) and "concrete" (dryness, whiteness, smoothness) meaning. I am not suggesting ignoring or preferring either of them. To clarify what I mean by a formal sign system I could lay one out for you, but I won't press the issue anymore if you don't want to.

The basis of consciousness appears to be vibrant illumination
In union, one can see consciousness is illumination (seen inside one’s consciousness, so obviously not with the eyes). I used the word “illumination” instead of “light” because people (especially at PF) might think of photons. But the illumination of consciousness is not “particlized,” it is smooth, homogeneous. In terms of its vibrancy, I don’t mean vibrating, but rather super-finely energetic. It isn’t so much seen as it is heard (as before, not with the ears, but rather one listens with consciousness itself).

How does the appearance of "physical" objects compare to the appearance of "nonphysical" objects? For instance, how do nonphysical brightness and smoothness compare to physical brightness and smoothness? Obviously you can make the distinction of not being directly experienced through the senses, but how do you know you are not just remembering some (originally) sensory experience? Do the brightness and smoothness experienced through union differ from the same experienced through memory? Dreams present similar questions, but maybe we should stick to wakeful experience.
BTW I'm not disagreeing, I'm inquiring.

 

[sage]

i don't know much about philosophy but i am not convinced that
a)presence of an universal consciousness is needed to explain the universe(and everything in it including ourselves).and that
b)consciousness cannot be generated by known biological processes alone.
why can't a universal consciousness be detected by existing scientific instruments? because it is not a physical entity? then how can it act on a physical entity, what are the laws of interaction? are there any quantitative models? right now the idea seems rather vague to me.

 

[Les Sleeth]

How does the appearance of "physical" objects compare to the appearance of "nonphysical" objects? For instance, how do nonphysical brightness and smoothness compare to physical brightness and smoothness? Obviously you can make the distinction of not being directly experienced through the senses, but how do you know you are not just remembering some (originally) sensory experience? Do the brightness and smoothness experienced through union differ from the same experienced through memory? Dreams present similar questions, but maybe we should stick to wakeful experience.

They are totally different, not even close; as different as between your memory of light and looking at a light bulb, except even more so because of an important aspect I’ve not talked about.

One of the biggest leaps I made in my meditating career was when I realized that that inner light is felt more than it is “seen.” That insight led me from having meditation primarily be an exercise in concentration, to being one of practicing feeling my own being. The instant I became clear about that, meditation got 1000% easier. Learning to recognize the feel of one’s consciousness naturally concentrates one, naturally stills the mind, naturally pulls one inward . . . so that one is relieved of having to make any effort other than feeling.

So there is no mistake by what I mean by “feeling,” I do not mean emotion or any of the senses. This feeling is a kind of sensitivity and receptiveness done with the innermost part of consciousness; later one learns one is actually feeling one’s own consciousness with consciousness itself. Getting good at that is what leads one straight to union. So this inner light is more than brightness, and much more substantial than a memory.

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . why can't a universal consciousness be detected by existing scientific instruments? because it is not a physical entity? then how can it act on a physical entity, what are the laws of interaction? are there any quantitative models? right now the idea seems rather vague to me.

If you are interested in a logical explanation for that question, you can do a search of this thread using the term "monism." Somewhere I posted a relatively short (long for a post tho) contemplation of the idea that a single substance could be the basis of consciousness and matter. What we call matter would be seen as this basic "stuff" in a more concentrated condition than consciousness, so there is no real duality.

 

[honestrosewater]

So this inner light is more than brightness, and much more substantial than a memory.

Do you know if any studies have been conducted to find correlations between the subjective experience of union and observable brain states?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Do you know if any studies have been conducted to find correlations between the subjective experience of union and observable brain states?

I've not heard of any studies. I would see part of the problem as finding someone who really is accomplished at union. I've mentioned I live in an area where there are lots of spiritual head trips going on, and some people I talk to claim they know all about it. But when I question them I can tell they don't. Another problem would be how the meditator would indicate to researchers when he/she starts to experience union. With me at least, maintaining an awareness of some task I had to perform would interfere with the single pointed way consciousness needs to be to approach union. I suppose they could just monitor without the meditator participating in any other way except working toward union.


I have often wondered myself what might show up if the brain were monitored. My theory is that it would show something like the alpha state, and so not really reflect what is going on inside. But of course I don't know. It would be fun to submit to tests to find out.