PDA

View Full Version : Last Monday's Discourse on Consciousness



Sita
2006-Oct-30 Mon, 06:20
Last Monday, Glenn embarked on the location of consciousness and its relationship to electromagnetism. Unfortunately, I left early because I got sick, but someone sent me an interesting article on sentient developments entitled, "Does the brain tap into the future?" I want to excerpt it here for discussion...

While researching my protopanpsychism article, I came across the work of Dean Radin and Dick Bierman whose research has yielded some very eerie results.

Before I get to this, however, I’d like you to conduct a short experiment. While looking at your feet, stomp on the ground. You will notice that your visual perception of your foot hitting the floor matches your sensation of touching it. This would be fine except for one thing: the speed of light is vastly faster than the conduction times and synaptic delays through the long nerves and spinal cord from your feet. As a result, you should be seeing the event before you feel it – and the delay should be noticeable.

But it’s not.

Benjamin Libet and his associates first documented this phenomenon in 1979, which is now referred to as the ‘delay-and-antedating hypothesis/paradox.’ A number of explanations have been posited to reconcile this strange observation.

Perhaps there is a lag in the visual information. If this is the case, then the visual cortex is set for a time delay such that it can keep up with the slow pulses from the extremities. This would be a rather bizarre revelation if true, meaning that we are constantly viewing the world with a small degree of latency. This is almost certainly not the case, as Darwinian selection would favour those animals that do not experience any kind of visual delay. Living in the past would be grossly disadvantageous out in the wild.

Another possible solution is that sight and feel are experienced at separate times, but are remembered as happening simultaneously. Problems with this hypothesis are similar to the previous one – a suggestion that we are not meaningfully rooted in the present and that our brain “edits” reality for us.

A third solution, one that seems ludicrous at first glance, is that the slow sensory information is referred backwards in time from the near future to match the fast information.

Impossible, right?

Sita
2006-Oct-30 Mon, 06:33
Sorry folks. I hit the wrong key. Here is the rest of the previous post.
Well, that’s where the work of Radin and Bierman come in. They have performed experiments in which it appears that the brain is reacting to stimuli before it is experienced. Radin and Bierman have conducted experiments in which subjects viewed random images flashing on a computer screen. Some of the images were rather neutral while others were meant to invoke a highly emotional response. The researchers discovered that the subjects responded strongly to the emotional images compared to the neutral ones, and that the response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds before the images appeared.

Bierman recently repeated these experiments using an fMRI brain scanner and documented emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Other laboratories have made similar findings.

Assuming the data is being recorded and interpreted correctly, what's going on here? How is it possible that information can run backwards in time? Roger Penrose believes that quantum effects in the brain could explain backwards referral. He suggests that such effects may occur commonly and even routinely. “If in some manifestation of consciousness,” says Penrose, “classical reasoning about the temporal ordering of events leads us to a contradictory conclusion, then this is strong indication that quantum actions are indeed at work!" Neuroscientist Fred Alan Wolf has come to a similar conclusion and has offered his ‘Two-Time Observable Transactional Interpretation Model’ (TTOTIM) of consciousness.

Stuart Hameroff notes that quantum information can indeed run backwards, or be time indeterminate, citing the Aharonov formulation which suggests that each quantum state reduction has a dual vector, both forward and backwards in time.

What does this all mean? As Wolf notes, “we need to look toward altering our concept of time in some manner, not that this is an easy thing to do. Perhaps we should begin with the idea that a single event in time is really as meaningless as a single event in space or a single velocity. Meaningful relation arises as a correspondence, a relationship with some reference object.”

In addition, this not also adds further credence to the quantum consciousness hypothesis, but to panpsychist notions as well.

References:

Fred Alan Wolf: "A Quantum Physics Model of the Timing of Conscious Experience"
Stuart Hameroff: "Time Flies (Backwards?)"

ref: George P. Dvorsky (author)
http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2006/10/does-brain-tap-into-future.html

Sita's note:
I remember a previous class last year regarding the delay mechanism that is used by our mind (input-process-output). Does anyone remember Glenn's class on that? It was one of the most interesting classes given because it brought some of us to new awareness of a mechanism that we take for granted, and something we do subconsciously. Glenn said that we are always operating in the past because by the time our eyes see the data and compartmentalized it into logical input, seconds have already elapsed (for those of us not so intelligent, could be minutes..haha)...and then our mind conducts some type of meeting with our consciousness and biological gears to process the data and then sends that data to the intended organ or consciousness center within our being for the desired or intended output.

What do you think about Mr. Dvorsky's paragraph on the possible solution that "sight and feel are experienced at separate times, but are remembered as happening simultaneously,"?? I found his third solution interesting (the slow sensory information referred backwards in time from the near future to match the fast information.

Take care,
Sita

Sita
2006-Oct-30 Mon, 06:35
Sorry about the mistakes in typing. First I hit the wrong key and sends an incomplete message, and then in correcting the first message, I add a typo in the subject. It's another Monday!!!

Aloha,
S

Glenn B. Wheaton
2006-Oct-30 Mon, 16:15
Aloha Sita,

Nice post indeed, I certainly think we have all begun to question the "How" of it all. As adults we need to progress and understand. I think one of the greatest shortfalls within the community has been the lack of understanding behind mechanism and mind.

In searching for mechanism we find it still a mystery. There is not a single fact of science in regards to mechanism although there is statistical evidence that something is happening. Jessica Utts is perhaps the only keeper of the scientific evidence for Remote Viewing. While the research efforts today are no longer focused on Remote Viewing they are focused on the condition of the body. The viewer has been effectively removed and really science only needs your live brain and a working eyeball to carry on. I view this as an abandonment of the psychology of mind and not a search for understanding but repeatable statistics.

Dr. Utts indeed is the keeper of the scientific evidence but there has been a subtle shift to the "Psi" of it all and not Remote Viewing per se. We have been lumped in the large anomalous bowl, a potpourri of the little bits of strangeness that have persevered through time.

Please do not get me wrong I support any effort by science to understand Remote Viewing or anomalous cognition, but just at this moment there is more value in what we "the Viewers" can share among us as we stretch and expand or consciousness in the Remote Viewing effort. I want to sit across from the table with the viewer after a great session and hear everything, understand everything, question the origins of every bit of data. I know it sounds like a debriefing but we learn from each other and this how it's done. Is this not how we have shared our experiences these long 9 years?

In searching for mechanism I have tried to expose all of you to my world, the world of waves across spectrums of frequencies that are the foundations of existence. Consciousness is the living wave and each of us can seek understanding of consciousness in the milieu of the history of those from the dawn of time that have written on its merits and character. To understand consciousness requires great thoughts not great science, so let men of science continue to search in their way, but do not be held back waiting for some truth of science. Push you mind and shape your own consciousness.

In the development of the Viewer I am more concerned with what doors can your consciousness open for you. You have seen that you can slide time and leap space by your own grace. My instructions and classes on our environment from the macrocosm to the quantum have been to place you as the window or door between macro and the micro. Information you seek from outside your own state doesn't necessarily stop once you bring it within your sense of consciousness.

A day will come when science will say they can now prove the interconnectivity of all things, all states of matter, all dimensions and universes. Following the electron, the photon, the neuron, the neutrino, quantum particles and waves, and their very best friend magnetism will solve the riddle. Consciousness certainly could not be without them.

So let's do discuss your post a bit more. Where to first?

Glenn

Glenn B. Wheaton
2006-Nov-02 Thu, 01:52
Aloha Sita,

Monday's class was a good follow up to your post here. I wish there was an easy way to steer science back to Remote Viewing specifically. The major problem is that science will not deal in Remote Viewing data but only in statistics. In a field where a viewer is as likely to be off-target as on, specific repeatability may simply be difficult.

Let's say the Lighthouse target you worked at the A.R.E. conference (blind) and nailed is an example for science to evaluate. First it was obvious that the target was a Lighthouse and your site sketch was of a Lighthouse. Now here is the dilemma, science cannot say you are correct. If the protocol was followed and you reproduced the target in your sketch to admit you are correct would mean that the anomalous method that you used to get the data was real. When confronted with your data it is first reduced to anecdotal status and not proof of any kind for the existence of remote viewing. Why is that?

Well for one RV is a lot like Marshall Dillon at one end of the street and the viewer at the other end. The clock strikes 12 and boom you win or lose. If science gives you a Lighthouse target and you draw a lighthouse then you just shot them between the eyes but they simply wont fall down.

It's because they do not know how to deal with specific Remote Viewing data period. They contrive other methods to grade your effort that allows for a statistical score while never having to specifically deal with the data you produced. As soon as they deal with the data itself then it must be scored against the protocol, and if the protocol is tight they must conclude the unthinkable, and they refuse.

This does not mean that we cannot use analysis and prove an individual session; we do it all the time. Science is just not prepared to deal with you the viewer and your individual performance or any of your data specifically. In your session you may have 100 to 600 specific points of data that may be correct or wrong, but to science they are all wrong. They must take that position and regulate the results to statistics where even high scores can be watered down by endless trials.

Until the day comes when the mechanism can be identified the greater view of science will be that Remote Viewing is not real. This is not to say that individual scientists do not believe, they just don't want to risk their careers in their greater academic circles to say so.

Glenn