Alex Tsakiris, Four Questions About the Future of Skeptiko |414|

#41
(Basically, I believe there is a 3D physical realm along with a non-physical realm "nearby" where our thoughts and emotions can influence and from which non-physical entities can influence us. This is the sandbox, and there are higher realms beyond this sandbox that are harder to reach for most of us.)
Good stuff Meurs. I carry this construct as one of my models of consideration. In several EVP's (still considering the reliability versus probative nature of that type of data) I have heard, in the right circumstance, an acoustic echo consistent with that of the room in which the observer was located, to be contained in the EVP wav form signal - curiously, the voice was still imparted directly to the electronic medium - yet it contained the acoustic tail form (echo) of the room in which the voice was captured. As if the 'person' in the EVP was actually standing in the room in which the EVP was collected.

For instance, if the people doing the investigation, when speaking, produce wave forms which carry a 25' plate and 20' side hall reverb form - a complex setting in most acoustic engineering software, then why would an EVP, imparted directly to an electronic device in that room (and not heard by any of the investigators, and also assuming EVP is real), carry that same exact 25'-plate/20'-side hall reverb acoustic signature?

The only way this could happen is if the origin of the voice is standing in the room in which the EVP was collected - thereby falsifying the notion that the voice was generated in another location, or was radio frequency interference.

What this inductively suggests (it is not conclusive), is that the originator of the EVP is standing in an exact duplicate/essence of the 3 dimensional space in which the EVP was observed - yet without a time-constrained set of dimensionality, or in a time accelerated/decelerated one. It may be that as we leave this 4 dimensional prison, the first bars to fall are time. Thereafter the three dimensions of space fade at a later point.

Nearby.

There are also relativistic implications with this. If time extends into our Planck horizon, independent from space - then
1. It can be manipulated independent from space.
2. It can be non-linear in its natural form (does not have to follow the linearity of natural space inside a common single frame of reference).
 
Last edited:
#42
Alex, so good to see you cut to the chase like this!

I'll go straight to question #3:
3. What is the relationship between "this reality that is bound in space/time" and "that reality that transcends space/time"? And if this other reality transcends space/time, what does it tell us about our reality that is confined by space/time? Does it suggest that his reality is a lesser reality?

Something which seems more and more likely to me is that our reality is some kind of playground for "forces"/entities/archetypes (sorry I cannot be very precise - I wish I knew who is pulling the strings but I can only speculate). Meurs wrote (post #3 in this thread): "The obvious strategy would be to consider what we from the higher realm might get from a lesser realm. It has to have some purpose. Knowledge can't be it."

I agree - it can't be knowledge. And this is why I don't consider the idea that "we are bits of God discovering himself" convincing at all. First of all, the very definition of the word "God" implies an all-knowing entity, so (s)/he/it would not need to create a material world to discover anything about himself.

I find it bizarre that people should immediately jump to the conclusion that our material world was created by the "ultimate Being"/ Ground of Being. We could be removed from (s)/he/it by many, many "layers" (which is, by the way, the Gnostic view of things)!

This reality may very well be the creation of "beings", who themselves emerged/were created by other beings/forces/some would say "gods" or spirits I suppose (again, I don't have words or clear concepts to describe them, obviously. I don't think that we humans have adequate, shared words to refer to them, because they are able to 'manifest' in different ways in human experience (in the material world too: synchronicity etc) and consciousness (NDEs, visions, dreams etc) - and they do so, I guess, because they want to provoke certain reactions on those who 'experience' them, but still wish to confuse mankind by the bizarreness and diversity of their "interventions", so as to leave us guessing. The word "Being" makes one think of 'individuals' with some kind of life of their own. They may be more akin to "forces", like the Gods of mythology, for example)

The purpose of this? What is the purpose of games like "the Sims"? Obviously those who play the game enjoy it. There doesn't need to be more to it.

I don't know if you saw my post of yesterday (#99 in the rey hernandez thread) with a suggestion for a future show - I'm not saying that this guy "knows the truth" but I sure would be interested in his answers to your questions.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...nd-the-paranormal-412.4357/page-5#post-130449

=====

With reference to what you say in your solo podcast: "So, there are so many layers to that because as appealing as that Gnostic sensibility is, it doesn’t really give us any hope of transcending outside of this little street fight."

Of course, I wish I knew the way out of this material reality! This is what makes me a seeker. You'll be interested to hear that this guy has addressed the question (see the two excerpts below, from the Amazon sample of his book, which I haven't read ).


Edit: I am listening to an interview with Dr Gallimore which is very interesting and much better quality (video and sound). If you go to minute 24 he starts describing his experience with and speculations about "other dimensional beings" :

https://www.reddit.com/r/GrahamHancock/comments/by5l3f
Hypermagda,

I propose and entirely different paradigm; one that isn't so paranoid/conspiracy minded.

We experience the time/space dimension because it is a real possibility in the realm of mind. Mind can conceive of it and it can, therefore, be created by us. It is part of the totality. Therefore, we, being mind (not having mind, but being mind) experience the very real time/space dimension as part of the totality of potential experiences available to entities of the human consciousness mold.

No one/nothing is putting us here or forcing us here or using us here. We are here because it is part of our over all mind. We'd be incomplete if we didn't experience this. We experience other types of consciousness/reality as well. We are experiencing them now; only our ego mind that dwells in time/space/material isn't paying attention to the other realms we exist in. It could and does for some people. It's all a matter of focus.

There is no deception or conspiracy. We are doing it to ourselves based on what we focus on and how much energy we put into maintaining the focus.
 
Last edited:
#43
I think all this talk about materialists leaders being satanic and deceiving us for some nefarious purpose(s) is hooey based on a failure to understand the lot of humanity pre-industrial revolution. The disease, famine, pain, injustice and general brutishness of life was incredible. Most people in modern Western society couldn't hack a year, let alone a life time, in that kind of environment.

That some people who have the knowledge and resources would seek to manage society to improve conditions is not only understandable, but under-appreciated. Look at public health and vaccinations. They have saved millions of lives and prevented incalculable suffering.

Oh the conspiratorial evil of it all.

Sure, it could go too far and sometimes does. Such is the nature of human endeavor. But "satanic" - sheesh. Fine. Don't get vaccinated, shape yourself a spear, and move yourself to the equatorial African bush where you can be free from "the man".
 
Last edited:
#44
While I do recognize the condescension in your post (very spiritually enlightened Jim!) in regards to my comprehension of the English language, the reason I described it as being "the choice" was not because I did not understand how definitions work. It is because, in my eyes, I believe free will to be in the same category as consciousness. You seem to want to define it in explanatory terms, to reduce it down to a system or an analogy. Consciousness can't be explained like that, what makes you think free will and other things like that could be as well? Some things simply just "are."
I did not mean to be condescending. I wanted to explain myself as clearly as possible.
 
#45
There are several HUGE discussions going on in this thread. I'm a newcomer here, so I don't know the protocols. But I'll just jump in with several cents' worth of my big thoughts that will doubtless seem completely inadequate to the scope of the discussion.

First, I always like to begin at the beginning and work forward. So, how does the originating consciousness differ from our individual points of view? IOW, what limitation is there to "God" that our individually spread out fractals of consciousness overcome? Think about this: isn't omniscience, eternality, and omnipresence a shortcoming if what you desire to experience is a narrow, time-constrained point of view (POV)? This means I can do something God can't--I can experience limitation in knowledge, time, and space. I wouldn't say the purpose of our existence is so that God can experience first-hand limitations, but that does happen to occur. I'd rather say that consciousness is the ground-state of the universe, and that everything from photons and sub-atomic particles and waves on up through those of us "lifeforms" and on through to galaxies, are fractals of this primordial consciousness possessing varying degrees of self-awareness. To be sure, little things make for little fractals with great limitations--if you are a single quark you only know your tiny little job, but if you add all the quarks together they are everywhere and constitute everything, and therefore approach omnipresence in the aggregate.

If consciousness is the ground-state, and all things are fractals of consciousness, then all things, in the end, are but dreams of the primordial consciousness. No things, just thoughts. My "Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything" T.O.E. suggests that the original thought of the primordial consciousness (oft called God) was precisely the formula of this universe. This formula, in all of its finely tuned ramifications, is fractally reiterated in every single thing, and this is how it is that the universe holds together and functions so well. Every iteration knows its particular job and most units of consciousness do their jobs gladly and well. Free will comes in when a unit of consciousness chooses whether or not to do its job. The universe is inherently cooperative and functional; it feels to us humans like "love" when units of consciousness cooperate in the smooth operation of the universe. It is not necessarily "free will" to be a good family member or employee--we are inherently so. When units of consciousness use their free will to obstruct or destroy, that is an abberation. A skin cell that no longer wants to be skin uses its free will to instantiate a melanoma, for example. It's a good thing for all of us and for all of creation that the overwhelming number of units of consciousness do their jobs to the best of their ability. Because of redundancy of functions, creation can handle a modicum of free will units not pitching in.

All units of consciousness reach out to their neighbors with love, information, and assistance in order to work together for the benefit of all to build the next level up, no matter who or what they may be. Cells hold hands with other cells like themselves to form organs. Organs hold hands to become creatures. Atoms hold hands with other atoms to form molecules. Humans hold hands with other humans to form families, work products, and so on. The pattern of reaching out to others like oneself to build for the benefit of all is what makes the universe hang together.

That's it for now. If you're curious, please visit my Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything blog for about 300+ articles on this kind of thing. Slide4.JPG Slide5.JPG Slide6.JPG
 
#46
I’m my humble opinion Alex, I’d go into the realm of non-NDE OBEs a bit more (ie-Astral travel etc.) my opinion is that this is the most important area of study regarding all these topics we like to talk about. NDEs are vastly important because they occur at death, but in terms of data collection, I think the prolific and published astral travelers have the most interesting things to say. Largely because their experiences are repeated, unlike NDErs. And they often seem just as profound. Ranging from floating above your resting body in bed, to traveling to other realms to meet with dead people, often in realms just as physical as this one.

I know you had Jurgen Ziewe on once. I would also consider Graham Nichols, William Buhlman, Cyrus Kirkpatrick, Greg Doyle, and Todd Acamesis.

Why are we so often deceived? Are you talking about “the trickster”? It’s a baffling thing to ponder. But it occurs with virtually every area of paranormal study. I think it even occurs in NDEs (according to some stories I’ve read). I also believe that this force prevents us from documenting these things as well as we would like. That’s clearly an obvious conclusion that any good researcher would draw if they look into any number of paranormal fields of study. It’s impossible to know what to make of it. Part of me thinks that part of this play which we’re all partaking in involves an immersion into this materialistic reality for learning purposes. This requires what many researchers refer to as “the veil” to be hoisted upon us so that we are essentially unaware of our true nature and reality so that we may better engage on our mission here.

That said, I think the function of the trickster might be partly something like, “well, no I’m not going to allow you to show proof to the rest of the world nor am I going to allow you to understand. Just know that reality isn’t even remotely what you’re making of it.” There’s no better way to stop people in their tracks and make them reconsider their notion of reality by throwing some of these episodes of “high strangeness” and synchronicity at them.

There must be some sort of “rule” in place which governs all of these entities interaction with us. Because they all drain the researchers camera batteries, or turn up all black film when the film is developed etc etc. Notice how ghosts don’t pop up in football stadiums in front of thousands of people? Notice how every single supposed alien species has refused to prove its existence to all of mankind in an unmistakable way?
 
#47
This has been argued to death on this forum already, and I'd rather not take the direction of this thread down that path. Maybe we should move the free will discussion, if we want to continue it, to the free will thread (I believe there used to be one)? Perhaps free will is in the same category as a qualia, inexplicable besides it being what it is in essence. It is an idea, to reduce it down to a system may not do it justice.

While I do recognize the condescension in your post (very spiritually enlightened Jim!) in regards to my comprehension of the English language, the reason I described it as being "the choice" was not because I did not understand how definitions work. It is because, in my eyes, I believe free will to be in the same category as consciousness. You seem to want to define it in explanatory terms, to reduce it down to a system or an analogy. Consciousness can't be explained like that, what makes you think free will and other things like that could be as well? Some things simply just "are."

Whether you place free will into that category is ultimately up to you, I certainly do. Your experiences with meditation seem to tell you otherwise and that is your truth. No one here can convince you otherwise. It may seem like a "cop-out" to place free will into the qualia/consciousness category, but that's just my perspective on it from contemplating it. If determinism is what works best for you and is closer to what you believe to be your truth then that is what it is. There are lots of reasons to believe determinism, and there are lots of reasons to believe in free will. Both are backed by mathematics. I will say though, a deterministic universe is definitely pre-QM line of thought. Or at the very least, QM shed much doubt on the truth of determinism in its totality, and the debate to this day that started between Einstein-Bohr still is ongoing.
I agree completely with what Jim wrote. I don't think he wanted to say that free will is not in the same category as consciousness or qualia, he was pointing out that mere unpredictability of behaviour doesn't necessarily imply conscious acts of free will. Mere random numbers can generate something superficially similar to free will, but without consciousness.

Possibly you are mistaking Jim's comment with the standard materialist idea that computers simulating neural networks are conscious. I don't think Jim believes that, and neither do I.

Is it possible that all three of us agree, but haven't yet realised that we do!

David
 
#49
Welcome to the forum!

If consciousness is the ground-state, and all things are fractals of consciousness, then all things, in the end, are but dreams of the primordial consciousness. No things, just thoughts. My "Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything" T.O.E. suggests that the original thought of the primordial consciousness (oft called God) was precisely the formula of this universe. This formula, in all of its finely tuned ramifications, is fractally reiterated in every single thing, and this is how it is that the universe holds together and functions so well. Every iteration knows its particular job and most units of consciousness do their jobs gladly and well. Free will comes in when a unit of consciousness chooses whether or not to do its job. The universe is inherently cooperative and functional; it feels to us humans like "love" when units of consciousness cooperate in the smooth operation of the universe. It is not necessarily "free will" to be a good family member or employee--we are inherently so. When units of consciousness use their free will to obstruct or destroy, that is an abberation. A skin cell that no longer wants to be skin uses its free will to instantiate a melanoma, for example. It's a good thing for all of us and for all of creation that the overwhelming number of units of consciousness do their jobs to the best of their ability. Because of redundancy of functions, creation can handle a modicum of free will units not pitching in.
The trouble is, it is relatively easy to come up with ideas like that - I'd say there are myriads of variants out on the internet - but extracting even the smallest piece of truth about reality is far more valuable.

David
 
#50
I’m my humble opinion Alex, I’d go into the realm of non-NDE OBEs a bit more (ie-Astral travel etc.) my opinion is that this is the most important area of study regarding all these topics we like to talk about. NDEs are vastly important because they occur at death, but in terms of data collection, I think the prolific and published astral travelers have the most interesting things to say. Largely because their experiences are repeated, unlike NDErs. And they often seem just as profound. Ranging from floating above your resting body in bed, to traveling to other realms to meet with dead people, often in realms just as physical as this one.

I know you had Jurgen Ziewe on once. I would also consider Graham Nichols, William Buhlman, Cyrus Kirkpatrick, Greg Doyle, and Todd Acamesis.

Why are we so often deceived? Are you talking about “the trickster”? It’s a baffling thing to ponder. But it occurs with virtually every area of paranormal study. I think it even occurs in NDEs (according to some stories I’ve read). I also believe that this force prevents us from documenting these things as well as we would like. That’s clearly an obvious conclusion that any good researcher would draw if they look into any number of paranormal fields of study. It’s impossible to know what to make of it. Part of me thinks that part of this play which we’re all partaking in involves an immersion into this materialistic reality for learning purposes. This requires what many researchers refer to as “the veil” to be hoisted upon us so that we are essentially unaware of our true nature and reality so that we may better engage on our mission here.

That said, I think the function of the trickster might be partly something like, “well, no I’m not going to allow you to show proof to the rest of the world nor am I going to allow you to understand. Just know that reality isn’t even remotely what you’re making of it.” There’s no better way to stop people in their tracks and make them reconsider their notion of reality by throwing some of these episodes of “high strangeness” and synchronicity at them.

There must be some sort of “rule” in place which governs all of these entities interaction with us. Because they all drain the researchers camera batteries, or turn up all black film when the film is developed etc etc. Notice how ghosts don’t pop up in football stadiums in front of thousands of people? Notice how every single supposed alien species has refused to prove its existence to all of mankind in an unmistakable way?
I agree, I'd like to get some updates on where the OBE explorer field has moved to. I've suggested Bob Peterson before, but I'd like to see what Robert Bruce, Buhlman and Nicholls are up to.

edit: Bruce has been on the show two years ago - https://skeptiko.com/out-of-body-experience-expert-robert-on-our-daemon-haunted-world/

Did a quick follow up on Robert Bruce and CHRIST the guy's website could not look like more of a marketing scam these days. What the hell happened?
 
Last edited:
#51
Could you say more specifically what data you are referring to and what exactly it shows and if you can provide a link to the data that would be helpful too.

If Dr Martin is claiming that meditation reduces discontentment, I agree. Many people who meditate make that observation. I don't insist on scientific results for something very simple like that.

But if you believe Dr. Martin's classes produce Buddhist awakening in a few weeks I need more convincing. I am very much interested in what Dr Martin is doing but I think you have to be careful about his research results because the last time I looked, they were based on subjective self assessments from research participants and there were no experimental controls. People who pay money for a class might be less than objective about what they got out of it. He also has a conflict of interest in finding positive results since he charges a fee for the course and that could also unconsciously influence his results.

Dr. Martin might be measuring well established psychological markers, but I don't agree characteristics of PNSE as defined by Dr. Martin (see below) are Buddhist awakening, I think they are the result of a lot of meditation. Experiments using blind protocols and experimental controls could potentially prove me wrong. Has Dr. Martin published research reports that give the scientific basis for grouping the characteristics of PNSE into four stages? Understanding the details about how he collected data and formed his conclusions is necessary to evaluate the validity of those conclusions.



I think that is what the meditators are saying ... because that is the effect meditation has had on me - the more I meditate, the more I see thought, emotions, and impulses as either arising by some invisible process in my mind or as arising from specific causes so I don't feel like I have anything like free will. I assume people who think they have free will think that way because they feel like they have it. I don't see free will as something that could exist objectively because I don't understand what it means. People think the definition is self-evident / self explanatory, but it isn't to me. What does "free will" mean? One problem I have is if you can predict behavior does that mean you don't have free will? How you answer that question affects the definition. So depending on the definition I might or might not agree we have free will. But actually, I think that the possibility behavior cold be predictable means that the concept of free will is incoherent - not that we don't have it, just the phrase is not something that means anything.

"PNSE 4 - No sense of agency"


here's one presentation:
 
#52
There are several HUGE discussions going on in this thread. I'm a newcomer here, so I don't know the protocols. But I'll just jump in with several cents' worth of my big thoughts that will doubtless seem completely inadequate to the scope of the discussion.

First, I always like to begin at the beginning and work forward. So, how does the originating consciousness differ from our individual points of view? IOW, what limitation is there to "God" that our individually spread out fractals of consciousness overcome? Think about this: isn't omniscience, eternality, and omnipresence a shortcoming if what you desire to experience is a narrow, time-constrained point of view (POV)? This means I can do something God can't--I can experience limitation in knowledge, time, and space. I wouldn't say the purpose of our existence is so that God can experience first-hand limitations, but that does happen to occur. I'd rather say that consciousness is the ground-state of the universe, and that everything from photons and sub-atomic particles and waves on up through those of us "lifeforms" and on through to galaxies, are fractals of this primordial consciousness possessing varying degrees of self-awareness. To be sure, little things make for little fractals with great limitations--if you are a single quark you only know your tiny little job, but if you add all the quarks together they are everywhere and constitute everything, and therefore approach omnipresence in the aggregate.

If consciousness is the ground-state, and all things are fractals of consciousness, then all things, in the end, are but dreams of the primordial consciousness. No things, just thoughts. My "Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything" T.O.E. suggests that the original thought of the primordial consciousness (oft called God) was precisely the formula of this universe. This formula, in all of its finely tuned ramifications, is fractally reiterated in every single thing, and this is how it is that the universe holds together and functions so well. Every iteration knows its particular job and most units of consciousness do their jobs gladly and well. Free will comes in when a unit of consciousness chooses whether or not to do its job. The universe is inherently cooperative and functional; it feels to us humans like "love" when units of consciousness cooperate in the smooth operation of the universe. It is not necessarily "free will" to be a good family member or employee--we are inherently so. When units of consciousness use their free will to obstruct or destroy, that is an abberation. A skin cell that no longer wants to be skin uses its free will to instantiate a melanoma, for example. It's a good thing for all of us and for all of creation that the overwhelming number of units of consciousness do their jobs to the best of their ability. Because of redundancy of functions, creation can handle a modicum of free will units not pitching in.

All units of consciousness reach out to their neighbors with love, information, and assistance in order to work together for the benefit of all to build the next level up, no matter who or what they may be. Cells hold hands with other cells like themselves to form organs. Organs hold hands to become creatures. Atoms hold hands with other atoms to form molecules. Humans hold hands with other humans to form families, work products, and so on. The pattern of reaching out to others like oneself to build for the benefit of all is what makes the universe hang together.

That's it for now. If you're curious, please visit my Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything blog for about 300+ articles on this kind of thing. View attachment 1204 View attachment 1205 View attachment 1206
thanks for joining us... and what an awesome first post!

I'm totally with you on a lot of this, but am currently hung up on the idea that our space-time reality is probably not the best position from which to collect and sift through this data. of course, we're all just working with these tiny, tattered shreds of a feedback from the universe, but I'm struck the fact that everything seems so well-ordered... until it's not. why is the paranormal so weird?
 
#53
I’m my humble opinion Alex, I’d go into the realm of non-NDE OBEs a bit more (ie-Astral travel etc.) my opinion is that this is the most important area of study regarding all these topics we like to talk about. NDEs are vastly important because they occur at death, but in terms of data collection, I think the prolific and published astral travelers have the most interesting things to say. Largely because their experiences are repeated, unlike NDErs. And they often seem just as profound. Ranging from floating above your resting body in bed, to traveling to other realms to meet with dead people, often in realms just as physical as this one.

I know you had Jurgen Ziewe on once. I would also consider Graham Nichols, William Buhlman, Cyrus Kirkpatrick, Greg Doyle, and Todd Acamesis.

Why are we so often deceived? Are you talking about “the trickster”? It’s a baffling thing to ponder. But it occurs with virtually every area of paranormal study. I think it even occurs in NDEs (according to some stories I’ve read). I also believe that this force prevents us from documenting these things as well as we would like. That’s clearly an obvious conclusion that any good researcher would draw if they look into any number of paranormal fields of study. It’s impossible to know what to make of it. Part of me thinks that part of this play which we’re all partaking in involves an immersion into this materialistic reality for learning purposes. This requires what many researchers refer to as “the veil” to be hoisted upon us so that we are essentially unaware of our true nature and reality so that we may better engage on our mission here.

That said, I think the function of the trickster might be partly something like, “well, no I’m not going to allow you to show proof to the rest of the world nor am I going to allow you to understand. Just know that reality isn’t even remotely what you’re making of it.” There’s no better way to stop people in their tracks and make them reconsider their notion of reality by throwing some of these episodes of “high strangeness” and synchronicity at them.

There must be some sort of “rule” in place which governs all of these entities interaction with us. Because they all drain the researchers camera batteries, or turn up all black film when the film is developed etc etc. Notice how ghosts don’t pop up in football stadiums in front of thousands of people? Notice how every single supposed alien species has refused to prove its existence to all of mankind in an unmistakable way?
totally agree... Great suggestion... we should go there, because I have beat the nde thing to death. on the other hand, I love the fact that we can thumb our nose at neuroscience while studying NDEs. but I got to get over that... I got to move to level 3 :)
 
#54
here's one presentation:
Alex,
I wrote:
I think discontentment is built into us biologically because it helps species to maintain themselves, and also because the physical world is not meant to be perfect. It is meant to be imperfect to provide us with problems to experience - people learn best by solving problems - by learning from experience. We are here to learn.
You wrote:
I think the data suggests otherwise. again one of the things I like about jeffrey martin's work is that he's measuring against well-established psychological markers.
I wrote:
Could you say more specifically what data you are referring to and what exactly it shows and if you can provide a link to the data that would be helpful too.
Would you please explain what you mean by "otherwise" what do you think the data show? What is your point? I made several assertions and implications in my original statement you quoted and I don't even know which you are replying to.

I am not going to try to guess what you meant and spend a lot of time writing a reply because I might not guess correctly and you might say you really meant something else.

Thanks
 
#55
Alex,
I wrote:

You wrote:

I wrote:


Would you please explain what you mean by "otherwise" what do you think the data show? What is your point? I made several assertions and implications in my original statement you quoted and I don't even know which you are replying to.

I am not going to try to guess what you meant and spend a lot of time writing a reply because I might not guess correctly and you might say you really meant something else.

Thanks
IDK... did you read his book? what about the presentation? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have have to do any of this in order to have an opinion... but if you're going to challenge the guy's research conclusions I think the onus is on you to dig through his stuff and present yr data.

I'd love to see an informed alternative opinion
 
#56
Good stuff Meurs. I carry this construct as one of my models of consideration. In several EVP's (still considering the reliability versus probative nature of that type of data) I have heard, in the right circumstance, an acoustic echo consistent with that of the room in which the observer was located, to be contained in the EVP wav form signal - curiously, the voice was still imparted directly to the electronic medium - yet it contained the acoustic tail form (echo) of the room in which the voice was captured. As if the 'person' in the EVP was actually standing in the room in which the EVP was collected.

For instance, if the people doing the investigation, when speaking, produce wave forms which carry a 25' plate and 20' side hall reverb form - a complex setting in most acoustic engineering software, then why would an EVP, imparted directly to an electronic device in that room (and not heard by any of the investigators, and also assuming EVP is real), carry that same exact 25'-plate/20'-side hall reverb acoustic signature?

The only way this could happen is if the origin of the voice is standing in the room in which the EVP was collected - thereby falsifying the notion that the voice was generated in another location, or was radio frequency interference.

What this inductively suggests (it is not conclusive), is that the originator of the EVP is standing in an exact duplicate/essence of the 3 dimensional space in which the EVP was observed - yet without a time-constrained set of dimensionality, or in a time accelerated/decelerated one. It may be that as we leave this 4 dimensional prison, the first bars to fall are time. Thereafter the three dimensions of space fade at a later point.

Nearby.

There are also relativistic implications with this. If time extends into our Planck horizon, independent from space - then
1. It can be manipulated independent from space.
2. It can be non-linear in its natural form (does not have to follow the linearity of natural space inside a common single frame of reference).
Fascinating. The intuition with EVPs is that spirits are bypassing the transducer and working with the electrical signal or even manipulating the storage medium directly (which means in the case of computer recording they're conversant with file systems and sound file formats). And if they're doing that then they'd have to simulate the acoustic properties observed. Sounds like a lot of work for not a lot of benefit. The time thing makes more sense on some level. How do they get their voices into our time stream? Via the past?
 
#57
IDK... did you read his book? what about the presentation? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have have to do any of this in order to have an opinion... but if you're going to challenge the guy's research conclusions I think the onus is on you to dig through his stuff and present yr data.

I'd love to see an informed alternative opinion
I would be very happy to give you an informed opinion but I am still waiting for you to explain what part of my statement you quoted that you think is contradicted by Dr. Martin's research so I can do that.

I think discontentment is built into us biologically because it helps species to maintain themselves, and also because the physical world is not meant to be perfect. It is meant to be imperfect to provide us with problems to experience - people learn best by solving problems - by learning from experience. We are here to learn.
 
#58
How do they get their voices into our time stream? Via the past?
Great question. Just saying that they are 'time independent' is not a comprehensive enough description. The only clue I have found was observing phenomena through Gen IV night vision goggles. One specific phenomena showed up as nitrogen blue on the phosphorous green emulsion field. Nitrogen is the next period down (period 3 to 2 energetic jump at p-Block) from phosphorous in the Periodic Table.

The energy to interact with the Xs2 shell of electrons, by direct experiment we conducted in the lab, on the night vision goggles - was in the near gamma ray range. How did a small soft object in my field of vision therefore, emit apparent radiation in the gamma ray freq range? The energy required to produce gamma rays would be enormous for that small an object. Unless one was operating off the same nominal level of KeV, however was doing so from a shift in Δ time?

Again, only inductive - probative, but needs to be replicated.
 
#59
IDK... did you read his book? what about the presentation? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have have to do any of this in order to have an opinion... but if you're going to challenge the guy's research conclusions I think the onus is on you to dig through his stuff and present yr data.

I'd love to see an informed alternative opinion

All of my opinions about Dr Martin's research are highly informed. I've watched many of his videos, scrutinized his web sites, read one of his books and read as much of his research, including his thesis and powerpoint presentations, as I can find. I made these posts (below) to this forum. I am not aware of anyone on this forum who has a better informed opinion of his research methods and conclusions.

My criticism of the research based on his classes contains specific detailed criticisms such as subjective self-assessments by students, lack of experimental controls, lack of blind protocols, and conflicts of interest.

However, I can't prove Dr Martin never said something that contradicts my statement about discontentment by presenting data. What am I supposed to do, copy and paste everything he ever wrote and transcripts of all his videos and say, "See he never said that?".


His thesis was somewhat related to this. He found that PNSE was not related to ego development, but was related to score on a mysticism scale.

But even if there is a correlation between PNSE and personality type, it doesn't tell you anything about any possible causal relationships. PNSE might be facilitated by a certain personality type or it might cause a certain personality type.

http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/858328943.html?FMT=AI

Ego Development Stage Does Not Predict Persistent​
Non-Symbolic Experience​
by​
Jeffery A. Martin​
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the California Institute of Integral​
Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of​
Doctor of Philosophy in Transformative Studies​
California Institute of Integral Studies​
San Francisco, CA​
2010​
...​
Abstract​
Non-symbolic experiences have been reported for millennia and generally​
attributed to spiritual and religious contexts, although atheists and agnostics also​
report them. Popular terms for them include: nondual awareness, enlightenment,​
mystical experiences, peak experiences, transcendental experience, the peace that​
passeth understanding, unity consciousness, union with God, and so forth. Most​
are temporary, but some individuals report a persistent form of them. Some​
scholars have argued that these experiences represent advanced stages of human​
development and placed them atop existing levels in various domains of​
developmental psychology such as cognitive or ego development. There is little​
evidence for this view. Moreover, several problems with it are pointed out in the​
present work.​
The primary goal of this study is to test the above taxonomy by comparing​
ego development and Mysticism Scale measurements from a diverse population​
of individuals who report persistent non-symbolic experience. This investigation
first hypothesized that individuals who report persistent non-symbolic experience
would exhibit a range of psychological developmental levels, specifically tested
here as a composite, ego development, using the Washington University Sentence
Completion Test (WUSCT). Second, it hypothesized that individuals who report
persistent non-symbolic experience would score higher on Hood's Mysticism
Scale than those who do not report such experiences. Third, it hypothesized the
absence of a simple or linear relationship between scores on the WUSCT and
Mysticism Scale for those who report non-symbolic experience.
These hypotheses were examined in 36 adults (F=9, M=27) reporting​
persistent non-symbolic experience. The first hypothesis was supported: ego
development stages ranged from 5 (Loevinger and Cook-Greuter's "Self Aware"
stage) to 10 (Cook-Greuter's "Unitive" stage). The second hypothesis was also
supported: average and median Mysticism Scale scores notably exceeded those
reported in studies of other populations. The third hypothesis could not be​
adequately tested because the Mysticism Scale score distribution was strongly​
skewed upwards, making most statistical comparisons unworkable. Overall, this
study provides the first strong evidence that persistent non-symbolic experience
does not represent higher levels of ego development.
This video by Dr Martin discusses the question further.​
The playlist containing that video has interesting background on PNSE​
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...nlightenment-be-taught.1953/page-2#post-58913

The whole point of PNSE is that it is defined very specifically.​
PNSE 1​
- Expansion of sense of self, connection to divine​
- Much less affected by ‘self’ thoughts​
- Distance from but still have positive and negative emotions​
- Deep peace but can be suppressed by triggered conditioning​
- Effects from perceptual triggers fall off quickly​
- Deep peace and beingness feels more real than anything previous​
- Trust in ‘how things are’​
- Personal history less relevant, memories less​
PNSE 2​
- ‘Self’ thoughts continue to fade​
- Peace increasingly harder to suppress/conditioning fades​
- Shift towards increasingly positive emotions, until only very positive emotions remain​
- Intermediate levels of perceptual triggers increasingly fade​
- More likely to feel that there is a correct decision or path to take when presented with choices​
- Higher well-being than location one​
PNSE 3​
- Only single positive emotion remains​
- Feels like a combination of universal compassion, love, joy, …​
- Higher well-being than location 2​
PNSE 4​
- No sense of agency​
- No emotions​
- No ‘self’ thoughts​
- Perceptual triggers at their bare minimum​
- No sense of divine or universal consciousness​
- life was simply unfolding and they were watching the process happen​
- Memory deficits/scheduled appointments, etc.​
- Highest well-being reported​

...​
Here is the definition of persistent non-symbolic experience (consciousness) from an article by Dr. Martin:

http://nonsymbolic.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/PNSE-Article.pdf
Defining the Phrase: Persistent Non-Symbolic Experience (PNSE)​
It was difficult to gain cooperation from this research population. They generally believed they would not and could not be understood scientifically. Finding language that did not push them away during their initial introduction to the research program was extremely important. Over the course of the research I tested a wide variety of words and phrases to find one that would be widely accepted by them.​
The term non-symbolic was derived from Cook-Greuter’s (2000) research involving ego development and transcendence. While she generally favored the word postsymbolic, she used a term related to non-symbolic in a 2000 paper, in the following context:​
Eastern psychologies have often pointed to the nonsymbolically mediated, or immediate ways of knowing as the only kind of knowing that can lead to enlightenment or true insight into human nature. In fact, they consider our addiction to language-mediated, discursive thought as a major hurdle in realizing the true or divine Self, or union with the Ground. (Cook-Greuter, p. 230)​

While similar terms exist in the psychology research community, in the field the term ‘nonsymbolic’ was the only one that was widely and readily adopted by the participants.​
For most of the project’s existence I interchangeably used the words experience and consciousness with participants. I do not mean to suggest that the definitions of these words are viewed as equivalent. Rather, these terms were the ones most commonly used by participants. Some participants objected strongly to one, while others objected just as strongly to the other. Still others felt neither was appropriate. I have used both with participants and in academic speaking and writing, but am more comfortable with the word experience. I feel that what is represented by this research primarily concerns reports of participants’ ongoing moment-tomoment way of experiencing the world, and that consciousness may be too broad a term.​
The term persistent is used to denote a consistent, ongoing experience versus a temporary one. Permanent is not used because the research has shown that participants experiencing PNSE can return to ‘normal’ consciousness. For the study, persistent is defined having continually experienced one or more forms of non-symbolic experience for at least 1 year.​
 
Last edited:
#60
Great question. Just saying that they are 'time independent' is not a comprehensive enough description. The only clue I have found was observing phenomena through Gen IV night vision goggles. One specific phenomena showed up as nitrogen blue on the phosphorous green emulsion field. Nitrogen is the next period down (period 3 to 2 energetic jump at p-Block) from phosphorous in the Periodic Table.

The energy to interact with the Xs2 shell of electrons, by direct experiment we conducted in the lab, on the night vision goggles - was in the near gamma ray range. How did a small soft object in my field of vision therefore, emit apparent radiation in the gamma ray freq range? The energy required to produce gamma rays would be enormous for that small an object. Unless one was operating off the same nominal level of KeV, however was doing so from a shift in Δ time?

Again, only inductive - probative, but needs to be replicated.
Cool. I infer from googling the theory of night vision operation that the goggles were taken apart and just the screen was exposed to the phenomena directly? Otherwise it'd be interacting with the electrons coming out of the photomultiplier. That's pretty wild. I don't know much about emission spectra, but I'll take your word for it.

Just rambling, but if all 3D beings perceived now on some universal clock's leading edge, a 4D entity could interact outside 3D perception by syncing to the universal 3D clock rate, but staying a few cycles behind. The 4D being can be very close but always phased outside of my perception.
 
Top