Considerations with Regards to Attunement of Consciousness and Experience of Esoteric Phenomena

[Voidmatrix]

This is born from the curiosity revolving around how people interpret occurrences and how these interpretations when considered on a large scale are contradictory.

Example: Some people share stories of seeing ghosts or other such phenomena that has little scientific backing.

There are two sides to this.

Side 1: People who share such things with staunch conviction are assumed to be dealing with a schizo-effective disorder, superstitious, or misinterpreting the situation at hand to bring them to an erroneous conclusion.

Side 2: In one manner or another, their interpretation of their experience is close enough that it's not a disorder, superstition, or misinterpretation.

Consider: Without the proper apparatus of vision, one cannot notice a rainbow, and as such, it doesn't exist. To smell asparagus urine, one needs a specific gene, otherwise that scent doesn't exist. For a variety of psychological therapies to work, one has to trust that they will work. To extend this, the nocebo effect has been observed with medications.

If we conditionally assume more difference than sameness across persons, it doesn't seem like a far stretch to see that some people have access to certain kinds of data that others may not.

It seems feasible then that we don't experience consciousness the same, and as a result, some have experiences brought about through sense experience that others don't.

Furthermore, this difference can be analogous to what one receiver tuned in one way can pick up versus another tuned in another way. To say a song playing on one station doesn’t exist because the radio is tuned to a different frequency is inaccurate.

Tuning our minds may be power of self suggestion, but it could also allow new inputs that actually come from the world in one manner or another.

None of this is to say that any such occurrences are relegated to psychology alone, since sensory input seems to be a very valid excitor of cognition, nor is any of this to say that mystical or paranormal phenomena effect consensus reality in a major way.

This is an open-ended consideration.

Some may be able to perceive things others cannot and such items of perception may be outside the scope for science to study, or is an indicator of the necessity of shifting primary premises of the system.

One love

 

[Varallo]

I think what you are doing is that you place objective and subjective phenomena on one line, which science can connect and study, but then extend that same line to anecdotal or paranormal claims. That last step doesn’t fit within what science can reliably assess.

So I think it’s not a question of whether these are all things on one line an therefore it’s a worthy of scientific consideration, the first question would be whether they all are in the same category.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Considering the unsettled debate between scientific realism and anti-realism, we can't even pin down if we're talking about the world or talking more about our phenomenology of it. Are we seeing something new and objective, or did we merely swap our phenomenological lens for a different one? Kant: Phenomena vs noumena.

I'm looking at it as more of a bell-curve. Everything in the broadest part of the bell-curve is what the apparatus of sense and mind happens to be able to experience in terms of consensus. But given that we don't all experience consciousness in the same ways, it's possible that there is objective phenomena that only some people have access to. Again, not everyone can smell asparagus urine. This is an attunement of an individuals mind that can be traced genetically. There may be other routes of attunement that could also lend itself to divergent experiences that aren't merely byproducts of the brain/mind.

Say everyone is a radio. Let's say there is a range within all of the receivers for what they can receive. Let's also say that most people have the same spectrum of receivers. This means there is some information they cannot receive. Does this mean, that because it doesn't appeal to the greater population it's unlikely for another receiver to have a broader range of signals it can pick up? No. It also doesn't make what they're able to pick up less external or objective. But that's how we interpret things: if a minority has some kind of experience than the majority, there's something wrong with that minority's interpretation.

However, 1,000,000 people can be wrong in a situation where one person is right.

And I'm not saying that this has to fall under scientific consideration. I find that to be a biased route because science is limited as to what it can explain. I do think that more serious consideration should be taken, instead of defaulting to ideas that have explanatory power, but no other real justification that is more valid than its contradiction.

One love

Edit: Something to note is the difference in our fundamental predicates and metaphysical assumptions with regards to this topic. No matter what we're probably going to disagree.

 

[northape]

Say everyone is a radio. Let's say there is a range within all of the receivers for what they can receive. Let's also say that most people have the same spectrum of receivers. This means there is some information they cannot receive. Does this mean, that because it doesn't appeal to the greater population it's unlikely for another receiver to have a broader range of signals it can pick up? No. It also doesn't make what they're able to pick up less external or objective. But that's how we interpret things: if a minority has some kind of experience than the majority, there's something wrong with that minority's interpretation.

I'd say that humans are more akin to software-defined radio. We have the capacity to receive a wide range of the spectrum, but most of it isn't implemented in our software (the mental side). Still, because this biological capacity is there, sometimes signals outside our mental range leak into perceived reality. We don't have a mental structure to deal with them, so they remain a mystery. The whole project becomes about pushing the boundaries and creating filters to deal with fringe signals. Maybe just opening mental space would be enough if we can accept the noise as the ultimate representation of what is.

 

[TheGreenPhantom]

Even within the realm of consensus reality, people have vastly different interpretations of their experience. Two kids grow up in the same home with a verbally abusive parent. One kid ignores the situation and does their own thing, while the other takes those words to heart and is deeply affected by them to the point that as a grown-up, they have to work on themselves for years before feeling right with the world.

When you broaden the scope of things to include things for which there are no consensus – things like ghosts, clairvoyance and UFOs – well, you can just fugettaboutit. Most are still arguing about and struggling to define the every-day.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Even within the realm of consensus reality, people have vastly different interpretations of their experience. Two kids grow up in the same home with a verbally abusive parent. One kid ignores the situation and does their own thing, while the other takes those words to heart and is deeply affected by them to the point that as a grown-up, they have to work on themselves for years before feeling right with the world.

When you broaden the scope of things to include things for which there are no consensus – things like ghosts, clairvoyance and UFOs – well, you can just fugettaboutit. Most are still arguing about and struggling to define the every-day.

The interpretive mode is what I'm moving towards!

And you're seeing the underlying point that most things we'd like to see as standard may not be and what seems self-evident usually isn't upon further investigation (Russell: Mathematics and Mysticism iirc).

We have to agree on certain unsubstantiated metaphysical principles in order to obtain consensus. To try and achieve this with the means of power, segregation, and/or manipulation is disingenuous to the goal and the cause.

One love

 

[Transform]

No matter what we're probably going to disagree.

I strongly disagree with this statement - oh, wait…

The interpretive mode is what I'm moving towards!

And you're seeing the underlying point that most things we'd like to see as standard may not be and what seems self-evident usually isn't upon further investigation (Russell: Mathematics and Mysticism iirc).

We have to agree on certain unsubstantiated metaphysical principles in order to obtain consensus. To try and achieve this with the means of power, segregation, and/or manipulation is disingenuous to the goal and the cause.

One love

Overall, this reminds me of the full-body, physical sensation of, what should one call it, bogglement? in the moment of finding out that some specific point of my worldview was completely back to front. For me, it's quite a specific feeling, since my strongest reference point is that I was holding a yoga pose the wrong way round and subsequently got corrected from a point of being utterly convinced that it had been right. Anyhow, I've noticed that a similar sensation occurs with other, more conceptual matters.

Being in touch with this sensation brings a certain level of delight for me in being corrected. This type of awareness seems to offer potential benefits in veracity checking wrt human interactions.

Do any of you have a similar mode of experience (or even understand what I'm talking about)? Maybe I'm just a bit weird

 

[Voidmatrix]

Do any of you have a similar mode of experience (or even understand what I'm talking about)? Maybe I'm just a bit weird

Yep, I know that feeling very well in my own way. That feeling has something very "true" to it. It's a feeling that I perpetuate by thinking in these ways and bringing up topics in the way I do. It's hard for me to not look at the world as conditional and open-ended.

The definite is indefinite as much as a complete formal system is incomplete (Godel).

One love

 

[Voidmatrix]

I strongly disagree with this statement - oh, wait…

Ya know, @Varallo I'm sorry. I said that just to put it out there for understanding, not realizing that it could come off as a deterrent to adding further to the conversation. I certainly am not trying to cut you down in such a way and value your input in such a topic.

One love

 

[blig-blug]

I've observed that most of my beliefs about reality, including the present moment, are heavily influenced by many images going through my mind all the time. I can engage with those images consciously and then they become a good tool for abstract thought. But the rest of the time (and that is overwhelmingly most of the time) they actually make me live partly out of reality, in some kind of dreamworld. That's not too good when the dreams turn into nightmares.

I think this is probably not uncommon, and one may never realize it's happening, as it's the "default" way of perceiving reality (for me and anyone else who experiences it this way). It has taken me many years to realize that this was going on. Then, you realize how simply eliciting certain images into other people's awareness can have a profound influence, and it's actually being purposefully done all the time.

Being in touch with this sensation brings a certain level of delight for me in being corrected. This type of awareness seems to offer potential benefits in veracity checking wrt human interactions.

It's a very positive attitude. Unfortunately, I find being corrected almost physically painful. This has decreased a lot over the last decade, and now it's generally not a problem and I actively seek it out, but it's still there. This, of course, comes from certain early experiences about what being wrong once supposedly "makes you be". It's similar for admitting ignorance. That's an area where the Nexus has been very helpful: I have to face being wrong and ignorant very frequently, but in a good environment.

 

[TheGreenPhantom]

I've observed that most of my beliefs about reality, including the present moment, are heavily influenced by many images going through my mind all the time. I can engage with those images consciously and then they become a good tool for abstract thought. But the rest of the time (and that is overwhelmingly most of the time) they actually make me live partly out of reality, in some kind of dreamworld.

Cinemascope!

I know exactly what you mean! Many years ago, I went to a music festival on Randell's Island, and as me and my bros were walking through the dusty parking lot, I overheard a conversation. A bunch of other kids from out of state were reciting lines from the desert scene in Spaceballs in reference to their new, possibly dodgy environment. Stoned as I was, I realized I was doing the same thing – relating to life through images (mostly from books and movies) rather than soaking up the present moment.

A fuse blew in my head right then, and I never bothered to replace it.

(Of course it didn't stop me from wimping out when it came to talking to girls... but that was a different issue.)

 

[Voidmatrix]

Makes me think of the idea that everything we say is a metaphor.

One love

 

[Prima Materia]

I will leave a verse from Bhagavad-gita here.
It's from the second chapter of the book. Sometimes it's verse 29, in this book it happens to be verse 30.

 

[Varallo]

Ya know, @Varallo I'm sorry. I said that just to put it out there for understanding, not realizing that it could come off as a deterrent to adding further to the conversation. I certainly am not trying to cut you down in such a way and value your input in such a topic.

One love

I don’t think your post is cutting me down, don’t worry about that, what I’m saying is that it mixes categories. Genetic or biological differences in perception, like the ability to smell asparagus in your pee, are measurable variations. Paranormal or anecdotal experiences are not in the same category. Treating them as comparable IMO creates a category mistake.

Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena shows the limits of what we can know, and how we are hindered by our own perception. But that does not mean every subjective experience points to external reality. This is why separating and categorizing what can be tested from what cannot is essential, anything else that comes after is not an truth but an belief.

Note: truth and beliefs are both important, also I think that truths are not absolute, and mostly highly specific, and as Kant says always an interpretation trough our own being.

 

[blig-blug]

Genetic or biological differences in perception, like the ability to smell asparagus in your pee, are measurable variations. Paranormal or anecdotal experiences are not in the same category. Treating them as comparable IMO creates a category mistake.

To be fair, that hangs on the assumption that what is being perceived in those paranormal experiences doesn't correspond to an external, measurable reality.
I do share that assumption, as it's the simplest explanation for the available evidence, including the multiple failed attempts to prove that something external is being perceived. But a priori, that needn't be the case.

Science itself hangs on the assumption that reality works in regular patterns. This is an assumption based on inference, but there's no guarantee that it will keep doing so at the next moment, or that it has been regular always, everywhere. Again, I share that assumption (without sharing it to some point you can't even function in daily life), and it has worked remarkably well. But it's still an assumption.

(what follows also hangs on those same assumptions)

Besides perception, I'm interested in the role of priors (initial beliefs) in all of this. For a given event, Baye's rule tells us (ideally) how to update our degree of (un)certainty about the causes of said event. That's why very unlikely causes need a massive amount of evidence before being considered likely. But there's nothing that tells us what our initial beliefs (priors) should be about what causes are likely and unlikely. I wonder if some of the differences in how evidence is interpreted comes from a difference in "initial calibration", so to speak.

If someone starts out with very strong beliefs about ghosts, any anecdotal evidence in that sense will correctly (in a mathematical sense) be attributed to ghosts, while any reason to doubt it won't be considered strong enough to shift the belief much, again correctly.

It's true that in reality we all are prey to cognitive bias, so our certainties often aren't updated at all (not even slightly), and we just ignore evidence that doesn't fit.
But still, it's interesting to observe that a perfect Bayesian updater that starts out calibrated very strongly in favor of some actually far-fetched ideas would interpret evidence very differently for a very long time. Only after a lot of updating would its initial calibration have shifted enough for the "most likely" attribution to change.

How can we know that we are not an initially miscalibrated agent ourselves? On the short term, we just can't! If we then add the effects of confirmation bias, it's likely that over the long term we wouldn't be able to know, either.

 

[Varallo]

To be fair, that hangs on the assumption that what is being perceived in those paranormal experiences doesn't correspond to an external, measurable reality.
I do share that assumption, as it's the simplest explanation for the available evidence, including the multiple failed attempts to prove that something external is being perceived. But a priori, that needn't be the case.

Science itself hangs on the assumption that reality works in regular patterns. This is an assumption based on inference, but there's no guarantee that it will keep doing so at the next moment, or that it has been regular always, everywhere. Again, I share that assumption (without sharing it to some point you can't even function in daily life), and it has worked remarkably well. But it's still an assumption.

(what follows also hangs on those same assumptions)

Besides perception, I'm interested in the role of priors (initial beliefs) in all of this. For a given event, Baye's rule tells us (ideally) how to update our degree of (un)certainty about the causes of said event. That's why very unlikely causes need a massive amount of evidence before being considered likely. But there's nothing that tells us what our initial beliefs (priors) should be about what causes are likely and unlikely. I wonder if some of the differences in how evidence is interpreted comes from a difference in "initial calibration", so to speak.

If someone starts out with very strong beliefs about ghosts, any anecdotal evidence in that sense will correctly (in a mathematical sense) be attributed to ghosts, while any reason to doubt it won't be considered strong enough to shift the belief much, again correctly.

It's true that in reality we all are prey to cognitive bias, so our certainties often aren't updated at all (not even slightly), and we just ignore evidence that doesn't fit.
But still, it's interesting to observe that a perfect Bayesian updater that starts out calibrated very strongly in favor of some actually far-fetched ideas would interpret evidence very differently for a very long time. Only after a lot of updating would its initial calibration have shifted enough for the "most likely" attribution to change.

How can we know that we are not an initially miscalibrated agent ourselves? On the short term, we just can't! If we then add the effects of confirmation bias, it's likely that over the long term we wouldn't be able to know, either.

I agree that all reasoning rests on assumptions. The regularity of nature, or the reliability of our senses, cannot be proven in advance but are necessary premises for science to function. The difference with paranormal claims is that these assumptions are continuously tested and so far have held up remarkably well, while the paranormal has not.

As an constructivist I think priors are pretty much formed in a collective fashion, and are therefore very much a product of our shared reality that is shaped by an creation of that collective. The problem is that if we allow extreme priors to dominate, then almost any belief system can become self-justifying. I strongly believe that science works as a corrective because it doesn’t rely on private calibration but on shared, reproducible results.

In short I think our thoughts strongly align thanks

 

[Voidmatrix]

The difference with paranormal claims is that these assumptions are continuously tested and so far have held up remarkably well, while the paranormal has not.

A vicious bias, isn't it?

One love

 

[Voidmatrix]

Genetic or biological differences in perception, like the ability to smell asparagus in your pee, are measurable variations. Paranormal or anecdotal experiences are not in the same category. Treating them as comparable IMO creates a category mistake.

What was the stance before we could measure those things?

And no, not in the same category in some sense, but they do fall under "things claimed to be experienced."

And we don't have to stop at the paranormal. I'm taking into consideration so much more, such as acupuncture as well.

What if our predicate assumptions about reality delimit what we can experience to some degree? This is why I mentioned placebo and nocebo effects.

I don't think that some items being measurable and others not really an issue because at some point the measurable items were unmeasutable so currently unmeasurable items are still part of the conversation.

I guess one of the games I'm playing or one of the things I consider is what if there's a perceptual spectrum or gradient that we humans experience an objective world on.

One love

 

[Varallo]

What was the stance before we could measure those things?

And no, not in the same category in some sense, but they do fall under "things claimed to be experienced."

And we don't have to stop at the paranormal. I'm taking into consideration so much more, such as acupuncture as well.

What if our predicate assumptions about reality delimit what we can experience to some degree? This is why I mentioned placebo and nocebo effects.

I don't think that some items being measurable and others not really an issue because at some point the measurable items were unmeasutable so currently unmeasurable items are still part of the conversation.

I guess one of the games I'm playing or one of the things I consider is what if there's a perceptual spectrum or gradient that we humans experience an objective world on.

One love

Sure things were once unmeasurable and later became measurable, but that doesn’t mean every other claim deserves the same expectation. The key difference is that phenomena like microbes or electricity produced consistent, reproducible effects long before instruments could detect them. Paranormal claims have not.

Placing all reports under “things claimed to be experienced” is a category mistake. A placebo effect is a documented biological mechanism, a ghost sighting is not in the same epistemic category. Without repeatable evidence, claims don’t move closer to reality just because they are reported.

Edit: I’m curious what your reason is for making the jump from ‘unmeasurable now’ to ‘equally valid as measurable’ and what you think makes it an valid jump? So what is in between?

 

[Voidmatrix]

Sure things were once unmeasurable and later became measurable, but that doesn’t mean every other claim deserves the same expectation. The key difference is that phenomena like microbes or electricity produced consistent, reproducible effects long before instruments could detect them. Paranormal claims have not.

Placing all reports under “things claimed to be experienced” is a category mistake. A placebo effect is a documented biological mechanism, a ghost sighting is not in the same epistemic category. Without repeatable evidence, claims don’t move closer to reality just because they are reported.

What about acupuncture?

Ghosts and stuff are on the far end of what I'm talking about.

And no I'm not saying that the expectations will translate, but to humble ourselves to the limits of our epistemic tools to inform us about the world. There's a big difference between "that's not real" and "we are unable to verify anything about this."

And sorry, I just woke up. Things claimed to be experienced is sloppy. However, the placebo effect is able to be noticed because there was a large enough threshold of people. It could also be possible that there are things that don't approach that threshold that can still be part of consensus reality, just unobservable to most.

Repeatability is nice to assuage our desires epistemically but that doesn't mean that things unrepeatable can't be part of reality. That's a bias of science.

We always have to start with some unverifiable metaphysical assumption.

One love