Out of the Dark

BTW I'm not looking to get involved in this conversation, I just wanted to point out to Kai that his premise is wrong. Of course I can't prove anything but I'm quite certain that I've made a balls of more lives than this one.
 
I don't think dreams are dimmer than the waking state. I used to think they were until I examined that assumption within a lucid dream. Turns out it's not the case. A memory of a dream, however, is vague, abstract and 'unreal' but within the dream itself that's not the case at all. At least, that's my experience, but I'm always running on zero sleep and full of drugs. It would be interesting to hear what others have to say about this, but maybe that's for another thread...

A lucid dream however is not the same state, physiologically, as a dream. Normally, the "executive functions" of the cortex are somewhat suppressed in REM sleep, but research by Martin Dresler has discovered that the dorsolateral prefontal cortex. a region responsible in part for executive function associated with the waking state, is reactivated in lucid dreaming as compared to REM. The study size was small, and needs further confirmation, but it is extremely unlikely, imo, that lucid dreaming will not be further discovered to recruit some brain regions usually active in the waking state. In essence, it becomes a hybrid of waking state and REM.
 
Biometrics? You know to improve engineering design?

That view is an out dated sound byte from the Darwinian mantra. Where what was not understood was labeled as the accumulation of a haphazard process. When in fact it just turns out to be yet more layers of regulation. Control mechanisms.
The information storage capacity is unrivaled by man. The molecular machinery is unriveled by man. The multi dimensional code is unriveled by man. The fidelity is unriveled by man.

Layers of error correcting mechanisms that don't know what they are doing?

That statement is ludicrous in the face of even the simplest of cells.

I think you are misunderstanding my statement. Nature shows great "real time" intelligence in the way that a sleepwalker does. It does not show any signs of foreplanning or design. The maladaption of the pain response once we can't shut it off is a glaring example. The intermittent lethality of the appendix (especially before surgery was invented) is another. And many other examples.
 
I didn't emerge from darkness, Kai. I distinctly remember coming from somewhere else, better, with some kind of a purpose.

But these kind of memories cannot be attached to any information source. When examined rationally, they are impressions formed within life. Even the idea that someone has "memories from a past life" does not establish a truth that they "were" that person, even if the "memories" are somehow real. Sometimes more than one person has these "memories." Sometimes, one person has more than one simultaneous "past life memory." Stevenson discussed such cases, but they usually get passed over in the discussion. In any case though, other lives are the field of manifestation. My case is that there is no real evidence of other theaters of manifestation except this physical realm.
 
Are you open to the "perspective" that what happens is that we translate our glimpses of actions/movement in non-physical into terms that make sense to us in physical?

No I'm still not computing, Saiko ...we don't live in the physical, we live in our minds, non physical
 
No I'm still not computing, Saiko ...we don't live in the physical, we live in our minds, non physical
So when you want a snack . . you shift your attention, go to that mental fridge and . .voila? lol. :) Though non-physical consciousness is primary, it doesn't mean the physical isn't real or that you are not experiencing within that framework.
 
So when you want a snack . . you shift your attention, go to that mental fridge and . .voila? lol. :) Though non-physical consciousness is primary, it doesn't mean the physical isn't real or that you are not experiencing within that framework.

I'm not saying the physical is not real. I'm just saying all our experience, all that we really are is ALL in our minds. When you have lost your mind or your mind dies (which it doesn't but if it did) , the fridge will still be there but you won't be experiencing choosing a peperami stick to nibble on even if your hand is picking one out.
 
I'm not saying the physical is not real. I'm just saying all our experience, all that we really are is ALL in our minds. When you have lost your mind or your mind dies (which it doesn't but if it did) , the fridge will still be there but you won't be experiencing choosing a peperami stick to nibble on even if your hand is picking one out.
Interesting. Not what I've experienced. Are coming to those concepts mostly by intellectual (thought) deduction or is that what you perceive from non-standard states? Also, if the fridge is still there then how can you claim it as all in your mind? And what do you mean by the term "mind"? There are some paths that use the term to describe what is not real, the camouflage.
 
in fact, I don't see consciousness as "digital" but as "analog" kind of like a dimmer switch. Dreams are dimmer than the waking state. Whatever "sleepwalking" or "deep sleep" or "vegetal consciousness" are, all the evidence suggests they are dimmer than that. I am not a physical or a mental monist, but a neutral monist, and in my view the closest we can come to accuracy is to say that clearer, more capable, or more lucid consciousness, manifests into being or emerges out of darker, more primitive, and more vegetal levels of "awareness." And like I say, I do think that this general picture is supported by observation of nature. I do accept that you might be correct in that there may be no such thing as "absolute unconsciousness," but this does not mean that the universe can be taken as conscious at a lucid level, or even at a dream level.

I agree that the dynamics of consciousness is more akin to analogue than digital, although I would describe it more as a dimmer switch that you are unable to turn off. I don't dispute that most people have experienced a state of consciousness that is "dimmer" than what we call the normal waking state, whether that is during a dream, on drugs, during severe illness or whatever. However, many people have experienced a clarity and vividness of consciousness that is greater than the normal waking state during these same conditions. I don't think there is any reason to assume that one state of affairs is to be granted more weight than the other in the context of your argument. In other words (and to use your parlance), nature shows us that our waking state can also "emerge" from higher states of consciousness (lucid dreams or drug induced states for example). But I don't really like the gist of your "emergence" argument because it implies some kind of dependency on the flow of time and I'm not sure that is appropriate.

I would need to know what you have in mind, to comment. Bear in mind that even a life (i.e. the organismic state) is not a permanent condition. At the end of the day it emerges from whatever potential generates life, and then returns to it (I use these terms neutrally to avoid deciding the issue in advance).

I was thinking of those experiences like NDEs, OBEs or other vivid mystical-like experiences induced after physical and mental trauma.


But you see, I reckon you could find evidence that you were conscious then, if you went after it. I think you are stretching beyond reason in making this argument. If you had written a novel, or conducted an orchestra, evidence would exist of your conscious action in this universe. What is the evidence for your conscious action affecting reality before you were born? Or does this consciousness have no action whatever? Ask yourself if that is truly realistic. I honestly don't think it is.

I agree that we could most likely point to events and actions on that day and call them evidence for my consciousness (but let's bear in mind that action is a physical concept and the only evidence that I could ever hope to gather from examining the events of that day would be physical evidence). However, I was trying to raise an objection to an argument that appealed to a lack of declarative memory of having a conscious experience. I was under the impression that (among other things) you were arguing that because we don't have a memory for conscious experience before our life, it follows that we were not conscious at that time (is "time" even an appropriate word here?). My objection was to point out that does not follow because we easily forget our conscious experiences from day to day. If your response is to suggest that consciousness must have physical effects in this world (even consciousness before life), your argument has shifted significantly, or so it appears to me.
 
A lucid dream however is not the same state, physiologically, as a dream. Normally, the "executive functions" of the cortex are somewhat suppressed in REM sleep, but research by Martin Dresler has discovered that the dorsolateral prefontal cortex. a region responsible in part for executive function associated with the waking state, is reactivated in lucid dreaming as compared to REM. The study size was small, and needs further confirmation, but it is extremely unlikely, imo, that lucid dreaming will not be further discovered to recruit some brain regions usually active in the waking state. In essence, it becomes a hybrid of waking state and REM.

How is that relevant to your argument? If someone goes to sleep and has a dream that is more vivid than the experience of being awake, it follows that we do not always descend into a "dimmer" or "darker" state of consciousness when we sleep.
 
Interesting. Not what I've experienced. Are coming to those concepts mostly by intellectual (thought) deduction or is that what you perceive from non-standard states? Also, if the fridge is still there then how can you claim it as all in your mind? And what do you mean by the term "mind"? There are some paths that use the term to describe what is not real, the camouflage.

I'm just using common sense, the way it seems to me. If everyone died on the earth and only one man (who was up in space in orbit shall we say) was able to return, would he not see a fridge when he came back. If he brought an alien with him, would ET not see a white box with a handle ?

I didn't claim the actual fridge was in my mind, I meant the light reflecting on the back of my retina from the fridge made it's way into my mind. And what I mean by mind is the feeling of existing, being here..."I think therefore I am" ... cognition, processing reflection etc the psyche.. powered by or as an energy as yet unknown, which is really the soul.

That entity that Wilder Penfield *discovered* when he was electrically stimulating the cortex of his patients.
 
I'm just using common sense, the way it seems to me. If everyone died on the earth and only one man (who was up in space in orbit shall we say) was able to return, would he not see a fridge when he came back. If he brought an alien with him, would ET not see a white box with a handle ?

I didn't claim the actual fridge was in my mind, I meant the light reflecting on the back of my retina from the fridge made it's way into my mind. And what I mean by mind is the feeling of existing, being here..."I think therefore I am" ... cognition, processing reflection etc the psyche.. powered by or as an energy as yet unknown, which is really the soul.

That entity that Wilder Penfield *discovered* when he was electrically stimulating the cortex of his patients.
Okay. Thanks. Now I understand your view somewhat more clearly. My perspective is different.

I view the answers to your "common sense" question as: - it depends but very likely yes. And - it depends on how that ET is as a physical process.

I see it more as "I am doing physical and I think" And yes there is light being reflected to nerves and all that. However that's all physical process. As I perceive, the feeling and the knowledge of existing are there independent of those processes. I don't see people as having souls - I see souls as having people.

Part of what I see as an ongoing difficulty in these discussions is terminology. I've addressed that on here a couple times but no one is really interested. I'd guess that's because everyone thinks that the way they us any term is the correct way and that all others who have valid knowledge will use the terms the same way. That could be true in the macro but there are often small but very significant differences.
 
Okay. Thanks. Now I understand your view somewhat more clearly. My perspective is different.

I view the answers to your "common sense" question as: - it depends but very likely yes. And - it depends on how that ET is as a physical process.

I see it more as "I am doing physical and I think" And yes there is light being reflected to nerves and all that. However that's all physical process. As I perceive, the feeling and the knowledge of existing are there independent of those processes. I don't see people as having souls - I see souls as having people.

Part of what I see as an ongoing difficulty in these discussions is terminology. I've addressed that on here a couple times but no one is really interested. I'd guess that's because everyone thinks that the way they us any term is the correct way and that all others who have valid knowledge will use the terms the same way. That could be true in the macro but there are often small but very significant differences.

"the feeling and the knowledge of existing are there independent of those processes. I don't see people as having souls - I see souls as having people."

I don't disagree with any of that, Saiko but it seems we have differences ? That's fine but I'm not sure what they are now.

I remember coming here, I can't prove it and it has no real value to anyone else of course but I'm certain for myself.... " I " joined with this thing I'm in now, " I" look out of a head (skull/eyes) . That makes no sense to physiologists , they would root through the protoplasm, find nothing but sensory connections and shout see, he's just another robot like us.

To that I would say look at the veridical OBE's...something is floating around
 
I remember coming here, I can't prove it and it has no real value to anyone else of course but I'm certain for myself.... " I " joined with this thing I'm in now, " I" look out of a head (skull/eyes) . That makes no sense to physiologists , they would root through the protoplasm, find nothing but sensory connections and shout see, he's just another robot like us.

I agree with that take on materialists. I also was not seeking "proof" - a misapplied concept IMO. My OP to you was simply that as I perceive things we translate our non-physical experiences through our physical thought processes. To visit the fridge again- in physical we do not generally perceive the transition of consciousness to matter or even the accepted physical fact that the thing we're looking at is more empty space than matter.

In similar fashion - I view that what you perceive as "remembering coming here" is - especially in the linear time aspects of it - a translation of the actuality into terms and concepts that fit the physical. That translation is automatic and is part of our configuration.
 
I agree with that take on materialists. I also was not seeking "proof" - a misapplied concept IMO. My OP to you was simply that as I perceive things we translate our non-physical experiences through our physical thought processes. To visit the fridge again- in physical we do not generally perceive the transition of consciousness to matter or even the accepted physical fact that the thing we're looking at is more empty space than matter.

In similar fashion - I view that what you perceive as "remembering coming here" is - especially in the linear time aspects of it - a translation of the actuality into terms and concepts that fit the physical. That translation is automatic and is part of our configuration.

The older I've become, Saiko I've begun to realise that linear time is nothing, no time has really passed, it just seems like it has. I'm not sure I get the point you are making about concepts that fit the physical.
 
I'm not sure I get the point you are making about concepts that fit the physical.
Linear time is a concept that "fits the physical." Gravity, touch, sight, here and there, from and to, . . . just about any and every view we have. So when you say "remember coming here" that's a translation of some type of some connection to some other state.
 
Linear time is a concept that "fits the physical." Gravity, touch, sight, here and there, from and to, . . . just about any and every view we have. So when you say "remember coming here" that's a translation of some type of some connection to some other state.

Yes. But I don't think it's a translation, I don't feel any different (basically) than when I arrived. And I don't think I will feel much different when I return, albeit some kind of fullness/happiness may be open to me, I hope so anyway, it seems that way from reports
 
I agree that the dynamics of consciousness is more akin to analogue than digital, although I would describe it more as a dimmer switch that you are unable to turn off. I don't dispute that most people have experienced a state of consciousness that is "dimmer" than what we call the normal waking state, whether that is during a dream, on drugs, during severe illness or whatever. However, many people have experienced a clarity and vividness of consciousness that is greater than the normal waking state during these same conditions. I don't think there is any reason to assume that one state of affairs is to be granted more weight than the other in the context of your argument. In other words (and to use your parlance), nature shows us that our waking state can also "emerge" from higher states of consciousness (lucid dreams or drug induced states for example). But I don't really like the gist of your "emergence" argument because it implies some kind of dependency on the flow of time and I'm not sure that is appropriate.



I was thinking of those experiences like NDEs, OBEs or other vivid mystical-like experiences induced after physical and mental trauma.

These are all very temporary states though, and are happening either close to a death crisis (within minutes generally) or in the previous mentioned "lucid dream" type scenario. I do not see in this, when contrasted with the patterns I indicated, a sufficient cause to disbelieve that greater awareness emerges out of lesser.
 
Yes. But I don't think it's a translation, I don't feel any different (basically) than when I arrived. And I don't think I will feel much different when I return, albeit some kind of fullness/happiness may be open to me, I hope so anyway, it seems that way from reports
Those reports are also translations. Do you think that known physical life is the model for all existence? Because almost all those reports come down to being alternate versions of human physical realities.
 
Back
Top