[pensador (OP)]

Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”

If I take a glass and dip it into an ocean, can it be said that I filter ocean water?

If you pour the water through a filter into the glass yes. It depends on the quality of the filter as to what your filtered ocean water is like.

I am struggling to find evidence for this, but I have some interesting links.

Radio consciousness https://anewmythos.com/is-the-brain-a-radio-for-the-frequency-of-consciousness/

Roger Penrose and Stuart Hamerhoff have a theory ORCH-OR again its cosmic consciousness.

30 minutes long, if anyone can spare the time to watch.

Edit wiki on the same subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

[pensador (OP)]

A review of ORCH_OR theory from 2019 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.08423.pdf
and a bit of easy reading background http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute

The review will probably be too long for most to read, it is interesting, but leaves more questions than answers.

Does the brain run various scenarios and then select a desired outcome? ie possible future events affecting events in the here and now? If a future event can affect current events in quantum mechanics, does space time need an extra level running different interconnected scenarios, before deciding on an outcome?

Not provable, not even wrong, or god els incompleteness thereom
 

[Kryptid]

Does the brain run various scenarios and then select a desired outcome?

If that was the case, you'd expect the brain to always choose the best outcome. Given that so many people are sick, poor and injured, that doesn't seem to be the case.

[pensador (OP)]

If that was the case, you'd expect the brain to always choose the best outcome. Given that so many people are sick, poor and injured, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Not every ones brain is programmed the same or has the same pathways, so not everyone will make the same decisions.

Do you know how quantum computers are programmed ?

[Kryptid]

Not every ones brain is programmed the same or has the same pathways, so not everyone will make the same decisions.

Presumably, they would still choose pathways that avoid undesirable consequences. There have been plenty of times in my life when things happened to me that I did not want to happen.

Do you know how quantum computers are programmed ?

Not really. It's been a long time since I looked into them.

[hamdani yusuf]

Does the brain run various scenarios and then select a desired outcome?

If that was the case, you'd expect the brain to always choose the best outcome. Given that so many people are sick, poor and injured, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Unexpected results come from false assumptions. It happens due to incomplete information.

[pensador (OP)]

Unexpected results come from false assumptions. It happens due to incomplete information.

Garbage in Garbage out, is a well known issue in computers. Humans are not that different bad inputs result in bad outputs ie wrong decisions

The "burden of proof" is a weighty thing that has plagued this thread Maybe This paper addressing non local consciousness and the burden of proof helps https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235773843_Crossing_the_Threshold_Non_local_Consciousness_and_the_Burden_of_Proof

If this is correct then non local consciousness is fact. Which is a bit worrying as I might have to apologise to some nutters, who might be sane after all 

"
Today there are six stabilized parapsy-chological protocols used in laboratoriesaround the world. Each of these six hasindependently produced six sigma results.Six sigma is 1 in 1,009,976,678, or the99.9999990699 percentile.Those that have been analyzed in detailare:●RV, ie, remote viewing;●REG, ie, random event generator;●Ganzfeld;●GCP, ie, global consciousness project;●presentiment; and●Retrocognition/precognition "

[puppypower]

One of the main problems, with science answering the question of where consciousness is located, is connected to the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science uses an extroverted approach; third person observations of reality. Observation in the third person is the best way to get a range of scientists to agree on the data. However, this is not the best way to deal with consciousness.

Let me give an example, say you had a toothache. While you moan in pain with the toothache, you also become an observational experiment, observed from the outside by others; third person. Would both data sets ; person with the pain and the person observing the person in pain be the same? The answer is no. Unless you have had a first hand experience of a toothache, there will be something missing in your external data relative to first hand consciousness.

In medical pain management, medicine often has a dilemma in terms of prescribing drugs for pain.  Doctors cannot climb into someone else's skin and measure the pain. They need to depend on the patient telling them in the first person.  The patient has a conscious awareness that cannot be easily derived in the third person. The third person approach has limitations when it comes to consciousness even in hospitals full of scientists and doctors.

A doctor is not allowed to operate on themselves, because the pain during surgery can impair one's conscious ability to operate. If you read between the lines, there are two separate things going on; first and third person. To investigate consciousness one needs to become both the scientist; third person object and the experiment; first person experience, with the pitfall of once the experiment is running; tooth ache, the scientists has to maintain objectivity and not be swept up by the experimental side of their mind; unable to operate due to pain distraction.

The experiment and the scientist are separated in modern science, However, science of the mind, that does not ignore data, requires both the scientist and experiment be the same person, so the scientist can access the unique first hand data streams, directly.  This standard is not reached in conventional science, but has been reached in some mystical philosophies and religions. If you fast for forty days, the unconscious will kick up all types of data. The third person observer may only see person appearing nearly dead, with a lot of brain activity.

Several decades ago there was a fad called the pet rock. The pet rock was nothing but a rock with a fake birth certificate for authentication. This was a fantasy fad, but it sold $millions in pet rocks. The fad did not last, but while it was active, these rocks often appeared to have a life of their own to their owners. Essentially a marketing seed was planted in the unconscious psyche, so one would react to the pet rock, in a certain way, until through herd speak, it appeared to become animate; outside in the third person. It was treated as though alive and very valuable. This is basically a projection type affect, that will impact people who do not know how to deal with consciousness in the first person, but deal with it only in the third person. 

If we go back to the philosophy of science, one may ask if the third person approach is so effective, why did science become so dogmatic, at various points in time, only to change its mind over time? It has to do with the pet rock affect of science. This cannot be seen through in the third person of its own philosophy. The pet rock affect has to wear off so the next generation of pet rocks can appear, in the third person.

The classic example of modern times is dark energy, This pet rock is nurtured throughout science even though it has never been seen in the lab to prove if it is real. Everyone seems to see it out in space. If you deny this and tell everyone this is a magic spell from the unconscious, you will be accused of blasphemy. The most important tool of science is the mind and best way to calibrate this tool is in the first person. But this is not allowed by the third person philosophy of science. First person will be called subjective, since it cannot be verified by others. Calibration is called subjective therefore the magic remains.

[Kryptid]

This pet rock is nurtured throughout science even though it has never been seen in the lab to prove if it is real. Everyone seems to see it out in space.

The same thing can be said of supernovae or the planet Jupiter. Are those somehow "pet rocks" too?

[pensador (OP)]

This is interesting

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235773843_Crossing_the_Threshold_Non_local_Consciousness_and_the_Burden_of_Proof

[pensador (OP)]

Not really. It's been a long time since I looked into them.

Here is a quick refresher, with interesting links if it is below your level https://plus.maths.org/content/how-does-quantum-commuting-work

[hamdani yusuf]

Let me give an example, say you had a toothache. While you moan in pain with the toothache, you also become an observational experiment, observed from the outside by others; third person. Would both data sets ; person with the pain and the person observing the person in pain be the same? The answer is no. Unless you have had a first hand experience of a toothache, there will be something missing in your external data relative to first hand consciousness.

Above is only true with current technology. When technology in direct brain interface is adequately advanced, simulating that pain can be so convincing we can no longer distinguish from the real pain.

In medical pain management, medicine often has a dilemma in terms of prescribing drugs for pain.  Doctors cannot climb into someone else's skin and measure the pain. They need to depend on the patient telling them in the first person.  The patient has a conscious awareness that cannot be easily derived in the third person. The third person approach has limitations when it comes to consciousness even in hospitals full of scientists and doctors.

The same for this.

A doctor is not allowed to operate on themselves, because the pain during surgery can impair one's conscious ability to operate.

It depends on the type of the operation. Many people can stitch their own skin.

[pensador (OP)]

This is interesting

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235773843_Crossing_the_Threshold_Non_local_Consciousness_and_the_Burden_of_Proof

Here is a utube by the same guy who wrote the article in the above link.

He might be mad, but then he might not be. 

[pensador (OP)]

Forgot to post this link on near death experiences, from the Lancet mentioned in the article posted previously

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673601071008/fulltext?_eventId=login

[puppypower]

This is interesting

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235773843_Crossing_the_Threshold_Non_local_Consciousness_and_the_Burden_of_Proof

Here is a utube by the same guy who wrote the article in the above link.

He might be mad, but then he might not be. 

Let me give an example, say you had a toothache. While you moan in pain with the toothache, you also become an observational experiment, observed from the outside by others; third person. Would both data sets ; person with the pain and the person observing the person in pain be the same? The answer is no. Unless you have had a first hand experience of a toothache, there will be something missing in your external data relative to first hand consciousness.

Above is only true with current technology. When technology in direct brain interface is adequately advanced, simulating that pain can be so convincing we can no longer distinguish from the real pain.

In medical pain management, medicine often has a dilemma in terms of prescribing drugs for pain.  Doctors cannot climb into someone else's skin and measure the pain. They need to depend on the patient telling them in the first person.  The patient has a conscious awareness that cannot be easily derived in the third person. The third person approach has limitations when it comes to consciousness even in hospitals full of scientists and doctors.

The same for this.

A doctor is not allowed to operate on themselves, because the pain during surgery can impair one's conscious ability to operate.

It depends on the type of the operation. Many people can stitch their own skin.

The point I was making is there is internal data, available to individual consciousness, that cannot be easily collected from the outside. Your point is if we have hypothetical machines we will be able to overcome this barrier.

This may be true of a toothache, but there will always be deeper and deeper data, which no machine has seen. Machines will always be one step behind direct experience.  No machine has found God in the lab, yet many people have conscious experiences that they attribute to God. The limitation of science does not set the bar very high.

What is felt by the faithful, as an awareness of God is valid conscious data, even if science has no machines to measure this data. It is like the toothache without machines. For now, science does not have sufficient internal data to define consciousness as a phenomena. What happens are the experts, see the external data, and then reflect internally and notice gaps . Nobody us given the authority to say done deal.

Say you had a dream and you were very conscientious about recording that dream when you awake. This is no different than any other form of objective science practice and data collection. You are observing and analyzing what is entering the primary tool of science which is connected to  conscious awareness. Yet it will be called subjective, since the data, even of valid, is unique to the individual, and cannot be group shared as raw data. There are no machines.

Calling this data subjective is because it conflicts with the dogma and philosophy of science. If science collects half baked third hand data for consciousness with obsolete machines, this is called objective, since others can share it. But this is really group data stacking and omission. That smells of subjective, to a first hand data collector. The majority wins.

The future of science of the mind will involved pioneer work where scientist become the experiment, so they can skip forward hundred of years of machines, to collect deep direct data. The brain can observe itself via consciousness, But like the doctor operating on themselves, maintaining objectivity, so the data can be valid, will require a lot training. If one faints in the day of adversity, the data will not be analyzed objectively and the ego can be consumed.

However,  we have two centers of consciousness; scientist=ego and inner self=experiment. An objective line can be drawn. In the end, the inner self is the source of consciousness and its data  can be used to define consciousness,

[pensador (OP)]

The point I was making is there is internal data, available to individual consciousness, that cannot be easily collected from the outside. Your point is if we have hypothetical machines we will be able to overcome this barrier.

The whole point of the thread is the consciousness may be external to the body, various articles have been presented, written by scientists working in the field (perhaps on the fringe). Some of these people have unnervingly plausible theories. What you are presenting isnt based on anything scientific, let alone related to the OP of the thread. Did you even take the opportunity to glance down any of the more recent papers I posted, or are you just convinced you are correct with NO scientific backup of your ideas.

You mention god. God is a very general term. Define what version of god it is you think you might be referring too and how any of your posts relate to the OP, and back it up with scientific reasoning. 

 

[puppypower]

The point I was making is there is internal data, available to individual consciousness, that cannot be easily collected from the outside. Your point is if we have hypothetical machines we will be able to overcome this barrier.

The whole point of the thread is the consciousness may be external to the body, various articles have been presented, written by scientists working in the field (perhaps on the fringe). Some of these people have unnervingly plausible theories. What you are presenting isnt based on anything scientific, let alone related to the OP of the thread. Did you even take the opportunity to glance down any of the more recent papers I posted, or are you just convinced you are correct with NO scientific backup of your ideas.

You mention god. God is a very general term. Define what version of god it is you think you might be referring too and how any of your posts relate to the OP, and back it up with scientific reasoning. 

Like I said there is a difference between first hand and third person data when it comes to consciousness This is why scientists will rerun the same experiments, and not just depend on third hand data. They want to personally smell the coffee, in real time, and feel how it impacts.

Consciousness data collected from the outside will not see all the data that is inside the person; experimental subject. The conclusions of the scientific method will be consistent with the data collected, externally. However it will not always be consistent with the entire possible data set, inside and outside. The analogy is trying to collect data of the stars without a telescope. The visible data, that we can all agree upon, will be real and valid. But his data alone, but it will fall short of the conclusions we would make, if we also collected data with the telescope.

Picture if you had the only telescope in town, and the rest of science has to depend on only visual data. The prestige of the herd can make half baked theory, look better that it is in reaity. The telescope data may even disprove much of the extrapolation of the theory and therefore the theory,  but since the telescope is not allowed to be used; taboo, the truth is called subjective or alternate theory. The half baked is called science consensus as though science votes. 

My experience in this field is connected having running experiments on myself; to collect internal data, that machines cannot see. I was the scientist and the experiment. In the very early days, I had an interest in psychology and was well aware of the external data in the science and the various orientations. This was needed to build some objectivity and courage in case going inside got scary. Now I can see the limitations of existing theory because the method is self limiting on terms of allowable data collection. It does not allow the telescope. Consciousness can be used to look outside or inside, and the full story needs both data.

The philosophy of science was designed, during the age of enlightenment, to factor out the inside data so we could differentiate objective reality.. If a group of us were in the woods at night some may sense danger, and others may hear a noise that seems to be a wild animal. in the bushes. The philosophy of science was designed to set limits to what is objective and real, based on what we can all agree upon. Not everyone is paranoid, nor did everyone hear the wild animal in the bushes. This data will not used to define the night.  We can all agree it is dark and the fire needs wood. This is the scientific method.

With exploring consciousness, these other data from inside; projected paranoia and wild animals, are part of the story of consciousness. To be able to gather this data,  and still call it science, the philosophy will need to be modified for this very particular field of science.  You cannot always separate internal and external data because of projection affects; paranoia and will animals. These have be investigated from inside, where the projector lies. 

Maybe next time I will discuss the research I did over many decades, many moons ago. I avoid this because it is dangerous and is usually misunderstood. My unyielding creative energy came from these experiments. I am prolific in new ideas creation, based on a rapport crested with internal integration affects. Tomorrow is Easter, so I will open up.

[hamdani yusuf]

Maybe next time I will discuss the research I did over many decades, many moons ago.

How do you define consciousness in your research? How does it relate to clinical consciousness? How does it relate to other concepts such as intelligence and self awareness? What are the minimum requirements for a being to be called conscious?

[puppypower]

Maybe next time I will discuss the research I did over many decades, many moons ago.

How do you define consciousness in your research? How does it relate to clinical consciousness? How does it relate to other concepts such as intelligence and self awareness? What are the minimum requirements for a being to be called conscious?

Consciousness is a platform for awareness. We can be aware of things that directly enter our sensory systems from the outside. We ca also be aware of things that  impact our sensory systems from the inside. In both cases, arousal to awareness only requires the brain stem to be triggered. I can be aware of a toothache by its internal generation of pain and the brain stem. I can also be aware of the dentist, though my visial cortex and brain stem, who is trying to relieve me of my pain.  There are also composite affects; inside and outside, act together, such as projection.

When I was a child I had social anxiety disorder. This is a good example of inner and outer awareness acting as a composite. Social anxiety is often due to a chemical imbalance, that causes an internal of feeling of anxiety. This feeling can make the outer world appear scarier than it is. As one looks out at the world, the internal anxiety triggers the brain stem, and makes you aware. One might then react as though there is threat outside you, which is not actually there.

I outgrew this as I got older, by making a distinction between outside and inside awareness, and how these can be different, but overlap. I never took drugs for this condition. Instead I learn to altered the internal chemistry with my consciousness, by using logic and memory to induce an alternate internal feeling platform. However, the impact of this on my youth caused me to maintain the habit of being more introspective than extroverted. I was designed to explore the inside.

My research began in an indirect way, many years later. I had started second professional job as a development engineer. I moved about 1000 miles from family and friends. I accepted being alone and spent my days working development and my evenings reading. I was out of school, and now had an opportunity to self study other areas that interested me. I began by reading a wide range of classical literature which had been avoided due to being an engineer. I was also interested in Occult,  Mysticism and Eastern Yoga and Meditation. I had been brought up Catholic and was expanding my knowledge base in philosophy and religion.

There was one form of yoga that I discovered and practiced that led to my research. This was called Kundalini Yoga, This style of yoga worked under the assumption that humans had seven psychic centers along the spine; tailbone, spline, navel, heart, throat, mind's eye, and top of the head. There were breathing and visualization exercises where you would visualize each center becoming activated as you did the  breathing exercises. You would also visualize the psychic energy flowing upward from bottom centers to the top. To practice, it first required a typo of mediation called Chaotic Mediation to help scramble patterns in mind, body and heart, common to western thinking. When my mind, body and heart was calm I began.

To make a long story short, my nightly sessions, before bed, with the Kundalini exercises, eventually led to some interesting and scary special affects. These culminated in a state of awareness that appeared like I; my consciousness, was about to leave my body. I knew about astral projection, from many of the occult and mystical teachings, but I never really expected it to happen. But on this one occasion, I could feel my body expand, fill my room,  and I was starting to float out. I became scared since i was not sure how to get back in. I was able to shut it off.

Again there is internal and external awareness and these can overlap in ways that can confuse you. At that time, It was not clear if this was real or a type of mind game. I was educated as a scientist, who is taught that everything is outside you. This was att he border of my reason. The impact of this experience was to scare me away from further developing the Yoga.

Instead, I shifted gears and decided to learn more about psychology as a way to explain this experience, as a projection from inside. It was scary to think it was outside me and beyond my control. Inside me was more comforting to my intellectual and introverted nature, since I felt more control.

The best orientation I found to deal with mystical affects, was the psychology of Carl Jung. Jung was less both the ego consciousness adapting to culture and more about the inner self and the archetypes of the collective unconscious. His theory of the inner self seemed to be the logical source of my experience. After that, I started to research the archetype and inner self. I read and studied the collective works of Jung.

[puppypower]

Part 2.

My interest in Jung, to help explain my mystical experiences, eventually led to me wanting to get first hand experience of the archetypes. It was one thing to intellectual follow the science logic and data that Jung presented, but as a development person, I wanted to go to the lab, run tests.  I decided to became the scientist and the experiment.

I began the research by simply recording my dreams at night and analyzing them in the morning, looking for symbols of the archetypes. Over time I became very proficient in collective human symbolism. The more I record and analyzed the dreams the more dreams and conscious in dreams I became. It comes down to brain stem activity while asleep. At times, I could control the flow in dreams.

One type of affect that began was connected to synchronicity. Synchronicity is implicit of meaningful coincidence. One type was I would dream dreams with unusual symbols that I would read about the next day. I was doing my daily Jung readings, and would find the symbol in my dreams, the next day in the new chapter I would read. Cause and affect were backwards. These affects were exciting and like a carrot on the string, led me deeper.

There was also another type of synchronicity connected to outside reality. In this case, I would become internally induced to awareness, of things in the environment, by the inner self. These specific awareness of objects would  help my analysis. For example, I might notice a blue bird flying from left to right. This bird is real. If I analyzed that as a dream symbol it would help me understand my actual dream. It was not two much the inner self making the bird fly,  as it was the oner self using reality event to make me aware of something, inside. This and consciousness in dreams began to blur the line between dreams and really.

In 20/20 hindsight, the differentiation of the symbolism and archetypes created a potential in my brain. The brain prefers to remain as an unconscious integration for lower energy. I was consciously breaking the unconscious integration apart to make the pieces conscious. This accumulating potential culminated in a nightmare that outline a natural healing process from the inner self; Mysterium Conjunctions or the mystical union. The inner self wanted to go back but with my conscious mind as part of the new integration.

In the dream an evil presence was about to enter my apartment. I then say a ring of light and fire rotating horizontally. A man and then woman jump into the ring and merge. The evil presence then says to me when you entered the ring, it shall be complete.

I was terrified to where I awake myself out of the dream, only to see the walls of my bedroom breathing. I could feel my animal body in pure panic, while another part of me was trying to calm down the anxiety. I then remembered the power of prayer for dealing with unknown fear. This calmed me down the presence left. At that  point I was no longer afraid, since I had a sword; reason and  a shield; faith. I was ready to move forward.

The next few days, i felt like my personality had been shattered. The anxiety had been so strong. A synchtoicity then appeared, which was a large colorful beetle, that landed above my front door and  remained there for three days.  If this was a dream symbol it was a symbol for protection. It stayed for three days and then as it fly away, I was back to normal. I not sure how to explain this with inner and outer reality and projection, since outer realty served the needs of the inner self.

It took about a month of rest from my labors, and then the reintegration process started. In this process the inner self would generate semi-conscious scenarios composed of feelings, imaginary and even projection. My  goal was to figure out the puzzle. If I got it right, I would get a dose of endorphins and feel like I could sense eternity. This buzz was short lived, until another puzzle would begin. This was the thousand fold distillation. The puzzles got extremely complicated and as time went on some would continue day and night, sometimes with as many a seven archetypes at a time. This was the toughest final exam I ever had. This went on for months until one day I was spit out and back to normal.

Some of the inner self scenarios involved lady friends. The reintegration process made me sort of a  magic man and my inner self would push the buttons of my lady friends, so they could generate spontaneous data rom their inner self, for my inner self. I still feel guilty to this day. But at the time, I was following the experiment, allowing it to run its course. In the end, I was exhausted but came out in one piece.

About a month later, after another rest, I started to notice a change. I was able to interact with the inner self in real time. The reintegration procedure; puzzles and translations, has built a translation link to the inner self. This is where the research got life changing. That is another day.