Dr. Mona Sobhani, Neuroscience and the Spiritual |575|

Consciousness exists

BTW, I take the existence of consciousness to be THE brute fact that stands on the firmest epistemological ground of any. It's exactly Descartes' cogito point. I would add, though, that "consciousness" may be too limited. Perhaps it would be better to say that "mind" exists. Consciousness is part of mind, certainly, but mind is more than just consciousness. Mind, for example, includes memory -- and, admitting Descartes's demon could cause us to have FALSE memories, it's still absolutely certain that we HAVE memories (whether true or false). So, we are beings that are conscious, have memories, and probably more. It's probably within the domain of cogito to know that we have UNconscious drivers (and for sure we know this an epistemic step down when we enter the realm of psychology). It's also probably the case that consciousness implies not only existence, but existence within a spacetime framework. (How could a being be conscious without being in time? And what would a conscious being be conscious OF if not in space? Even in dreams, we are conscious of a false spacetime.) So...long-winded point is simply that I don't think consciousness is fundamental, I think mind is.
 
Last edited:
The argument the researchers make is that within the set of reporters responding to the survey, they have controlled for under-reporting. But what they cannot control is the set of reporters responding to the survey. Law enforcement agencies say sexual assault is the #1 most unreported crime, estimating that about 65% of sexual assaults go unreported. The problem with the FREE study is not controlling for the reluctance of participants to report sexual assault. It is that people who experienced sexual assault would not have even volunteered for the study in the first place.
I get your point. then again, when you talk to the people that did this research and they say "yeah we controlled for that" you got to give some weight to that as well. especially since there're the only ones doing any of this work. I mean, if somebody wants to dig into the unreported problem as it relates to abductions or ET I would love to see the data.
 
It's just not "alien enough." As Vallee says, "the extraterrestrial theory is not good enough, because it is not strange enough to explain the facts."

I love Vallee... he's great... and I love how he forces out-of-the-box thinking. did you ever listen to the interview I did with him?

Dr. Jacques Vallée's Diaries Reveal What Most Scientists Still ...

I think it offers a different perspective... he is in many ways grounded in the non-strange world. Give a listen and post in that thread and we can chat about it.
 
BTW, I take the existence of consciousness to be THE brute fact that stands on the firmest epistemological ground of any. It's exactly Descartes' cogito point. I would add, though, that "consciousness" may be too limited. Perhaps it would be better to say that "mind" exists. Consciousness is part of mind, certainly, but mind is more than just consciousness. Mind, for example, includes memory -- and, admitting Descartes's demon could cause us to have FALSE memories, it's still absolutely certain that we HAVE memories (whether true or false). So, we are beings that are conscious, have memories, and probably more. It's probably within the domain of cogito to know that we have UNconscious drivers (and for sure we know this an epistemic step down when we enter the realm of psychology). It's also probably the case that consciousness implies not only existence, but existence within a spacetime framework. (How could a being be conscious without being in time? And what would a conscious being be conscious OF if not in space? Even in dreams, we are conscious of a false spacetime.) So...long-winded point is simply that I don't think consciousness is fundamental, I think mind is.

I definitely agree about the philosophical counter-argument to "consciousness is an illusion," which is just kind of silly when you think about it... but I think the experimental stuff is more interesting... double slit experiment rules :)
 
We probably agree about a few things:

  • Consciousness exists
  • Consciousness can affect the world -- mundanely, as in when I move my arm; more interestingly, as in what Radin has shown to be "real magic"
  • the reptilian / dragon / half-human creatures depicted in ancient art work require an explanation

Of course, one possible explanation of the ancient stuff is that the ancients actually were visited by alien reptiles. But...even reptiles are too close to what we'd expect from terrestrial evolution. It's just not "alien enough." As Vallee says, "the extraterrestrial theory is not good enough, because it is not strange enough to explain the facts." Vallee's position is that the ancient stuff is explained by the Gentry, which he takes to be real, interdimensional beings. The position I am inclined to, is that the ancient stuff and the Gentry are real-world manifestations, a la Radin's Real Magic, projected by the human subconscious. These manifestations may be intentional or unintentional, conjured by individuals (shamans, etc.) or by groups.

Example: I think about the case at Skinwalker Ranch where the Rabbi was chanting a "portal opening" incantation - and suddenly, viola, the thermal cams picked up huge variations. To me, it seems incredible that a Jewish incantation would affect the behavior of bonafide interdimensionals. Instead, consider: what does the Jewish incantation have in common with the other triggers of paranormal events -- rocket launches and digging holes? At first glance, nothing, right? But...what all three have in common is: they involve a group of people EXPECTING something paranormal to happen. And then, it does, and registers on infrared cameras, regular cameras, human senses, etc. The paranormal events are real; the cause seems to be the people watching.

Example 2: According to this study, Ukraine is currently a UAP hotspot.


https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.11215

The standard ET hypothesis would be that for some unknown reason, ET is interested in terrestrial military doings. But...really? Why??? The egregore hypothesis seems much simpler: there is a fantastic amount of psychic energy directed toward Ukraine at the moment, such that it is creating these reality storms.

I’m thinking more and more that earth is a hunger games type of arena. We’re being watched by the watchers. Heroes and villains may gain favor of higher powers that drops gifts. Incantations and magic are typing cheat codes into the command prompt or getting cooperation from an entity that is watching the game. The aliens like the spoiled upper class lacking the refining fires of death and scarcity have devolved from peak and have gone more than a little nuts with nothing but 1st universe problems to occupy them.
 
explained by the Gentry, which he takes to be real, interdimensional beings. The position I am inclined to, is that the ancient stuff and the Gentry are real-world manifestations, a la Radin's Real Magic, projected by the human subconscious. These manifestations may be intentional or unintentional, conjured by individuals (shamans, etc.) or by groups.

Example: I think about the case at Skinwalker Ranch where the Rabbi was chanting a "portal opening" incantation - and suddenly, viola, the thermal cams picked up huge variations. To me, it seems incredible that a Jewish incantation would affect the behavior of bonafide interdimensionals. Instead, consider: what does the Jewish incantation have in common with the other triggers of paranormal events -- rocket launches and digging holes? At first glance, nothing, right? But...what all three have in common is: they involve a group of people EXPECTING something paranormal to happen. And then, it does, and registers on infrared cameras, regular cameras, human senses, etc. The paranormal events are real; the cause seems to be the people watching.

This is quite close to my position. Paranormal events are real, but not literally. E.g. if a group of people sees an ET, they may be genuinely experiencing something, but it isn't an ET. It's something arising from collective consciousness and taking on a form in line with their expectations. In times past, they might have labelled it something different, such as a demon, elf or fairy.
 
This is quite close to my position. Paranormal events are real, but not literally.

I think we are on the same page, but to be clear, I think the subconscious is able to affect reality, literally.


It's something arising from collective consciousness and taking on a form in line with their expectations.
It may or may not be in line with conscious expectations, but it was latent in the subconscious.

In times past, they might have labelled it something different, such as a demon, elf or fairy.
Absolutely
 
I think we are on the same page, but to be clear, I think the subconscious is able to affect reality, literally.

I meant that whatever is perceived isn't literally as perceived. It's a real manifestation, though how it appears is an interpretation in light of expectations, or if not expectations, the general zeitgeist.
 
Hope you don't mind me jumping in here but I think the wait you're raising is super interesting. let me take it in a slightly different direction...

what are we to make of the fact that not everyone reports the existence of a "council"?

what are we to make of the fact that nde science doesn't consistently report a council?

on the other hand :)

what are we to make of the fact that the nde science could be interpreted as being generally consistent with the idea of a council as long as we don't try and pin it down too much?

and more importantly, what are we to make of the fact that several different hypnotherapist who are independent of each other have all experienced their patients going into spontaneous past-life regressions?
I think the probable answer to that, is that the non-physical realm (or whatever you want to call it) is not bland and homogenous. Maybe it is even more complex than human life on earth.

Also, maybe some events and people, such as Jesus, Budda, etc create a myth, and that myth continues on the other side.

David
 
I meant that whatever is perceived isn't literally as perceived. It's a real manifestation, though how it appears is an interpretation in light of expectations, or if not expectations, the general zeitgeist.
I do feel it is important to use explanations like that sparingly. Otherwise you enter a place where nothing is what it appears to be.

If science is a guide, we took atoms to be indivisible until we had really good evidence that matter could shed electrons etc. I.e. letting yourself be fooled by what something appears to be, may be a good way to learn the truth gradually.

David
 
I do feel it is important to use explanations like that sparingly. Otherwise you enter a place where nothing is what it appears to be.

And I believe that's true. Nothing is what it appears to be. Some things are apparently more concrete/literal than others, but I suspect that's mainly because a large number of people agree it's so. "Reality" as it is perceived is all a matter of interpretation. The more people accept an interpretation, the more it appears to be true. As a species, we create our "realities". The only thing to be said is that certain things exist, but to what extent they're considered literal and accurate representations of things in themselves is variable.
 
And I believe that's true. Nothing is what it appears to be. Some things are apparently more concrete/literal than others, but I suspect that's mainly because a large number of people agree it's so. "Reality" as it is perceived is all a matter of interpretation. The more people accept an interpretation, the more it appears to be true. As a species, we create our "realities". The only thing to be said is that certain things exist, but to what extent they're considered literal and accurate representations of things in themselves is variable.
I suppose my point is, that the only way to proceed is to assume what we see is real until experiments show that something isn't quite what we thought it was. Assuming atoms really were as they were supposed to be, did no harm at all. It gave us the kinetic theory of gasses, and a lot of other concepts in chemistry. That didn't stop us taking notice of electrons when the time came.

Taking a "Hey man, nothing is how it appears!" approach is wrong even if the statement turns out to be true!

If we do create our own realities, we need to find a way to understand that concept more precisely.

David
 
the problem to me was that consciousness would reside in the AI software itself or maybe in the actual computer hardware itself! Assuming it lay in the software, that seemed rather in the realm of ideas rather than being tied to physical matter. I also tried (and failed) to envision how a conscious computer program would feel if it were debugged by repeatedly pausing it and examining its variables or registers!

David
I like that idea. For the computer it would be a little like the 'Groundhog Day' movie wouldn't it?

But David how about this idea. If a software virus became conscious what would its world look like? how would it view its environment? What would its world view look like? It is commonplace to consider the possibility of some supercomputer becoming super intelligent but that is not how biological life evolved. Biological life started out with very simple life forms that over time got smarter and smarter. Isn't it possible that we are already breeding simple life forms in the shape of software viruses in cyberspace?
 
I like that idea. For the computer it would be a little like the 'Groundhog Day' movie wouldn't it?

But David how about this idea. If a software virus became conscious what would its world look like? how would it view its environment? What would its world view look like? It is commonplace to consider the possibility of some supercomputer becoming super intelligent but that is not how biological life evolved. Biological life started out with very simple life forms that over time got smarter and smarter. Isn't it possible that we are already breeding simple life forms in the shape of software viruses in cyberspace?
A computer virus consists of computer code written by a human being with the intention of causing problems for other human beings using other computers. Because the code was designed by its human creator to copy itself on to yet other computers, the computer virus spreads.

The only significance of computer viruses is that they show that human consciousness can be extremely combative, a bloody nuisance, and made a lot of money for yet other human beings that create anti-virus software - they tell us nothing about life or consciousness!

David
 
The only significance of computer viruses is that they show that human consciousness can be extremely combative, a bloody nuisance, and made a lot of money for yet other human beings that create anti-virus software - they tell us nothing about life or consciousness!

Ha ha David thank you for putting me right there. I especially like the bold text in your reply, I'm sure ypou put it there to focus my mind. However it turns out human beings have synthesized biological viruses which are life forms of a sort. Maybe if computer viruses discover sex they will 'come alive' and develop their own form of evolution. Anyway in your reply you miss my point. If a living entity could exist in cyberspace what would its world view be?
 
Back
Top