"What happens to a man when
He spills his heart on a page
And he watches words flow away
Then his feelings lay on a page alone.
There, waiting for someone who cares to read them,
To open their eyes to see them,
To see if they can make his thoughts their own."
"The way we see the world is changing. The way we see ourselves is also changing." (q, h/t) Most of us are used to seeing ourselves as isolated, solitary beings. I may be able to physically push you, but we don't generally believe that I can intrude upon the essence of you. However, as the data continues to paint a picture of mind's effect upon perceivable matter, will we be able to hold on to that perception of solitude? As we see how the mind manifests itself in what we experience as reality, will we also be forced to question the nature of other individuals? How can our minds affect reality without also affecting the other individuals who inhabit that reality?
"Distributed cognition is a branch of cognitive science that proposes that human knowledge and cognition are not confined to the individual. Instead, it is distributed by placing memories, facts, or knowledge on the objects, individuals, and tools in our environment." (q)
I am interested in a similar idea - that of a distributed self. The idea being that the memories, facts and knowledge held by other individuals all contribute to one particular individual's actions and sense of self. This would be true for each 'self', and such an idea, when pushed to its logical conclusion, would suggest that each of us are, at least in part, manifestations of a collective consciousness, extended mind, or some other unified whole. And of course, in keeping with the data that give rise to these thoughts and that speak of nonlocal relationships between mind and matter, such influences upon an individual's actions and sense of self would be of a similar nature, meaning that they occur in the absence of verbal or other local feedback from the other individuals. I would also suggest that such changes in one's own sense of self are noticeable to an individual who is using an appropriately developed introspective ability.
The idea of a collective consciousness (or unconscious) is not new to science. Science has even found an experimental illustration that resembles the idea of a collective/hive mind. Take a look at The Jelly Bean Experiment. (h/t) Picture each person who participated in this experiment as a node in an interconnected web where the connections between them are information related to the guessing experiment. Not explicit I-told-you-what-I-guessed connections, but exclusionary forces say that Person A's guess determines Person B's guess in a non-local way that is governed by the observations and consequences of the group's collective behavior. And each individual's action strengthens the output of the collective.
Here is another analogous image that corresponds quite well to the distributed self model that's slowly building itself in my mind. Picture one 'self' on each side of the pegboard. An 'action' on one side of the pegboard shows up as a change in the pegs on the other side of the board. Is the individual 'self' simply the configuration of the pegs on each side of the board, or is it the configuration of the pegs plus something else? That's an open question for me, as far as this particular analogy goes, though I'd like to think that it is a question that can be answered once we better understand the recursive nature of memory within the stream of consciousness.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Closer to the Edge
"Can you imagine a time when the truth ran free
The birth of a song and the death of a dream"
Sleep Journal
June 26th, 2011
Woke up at about 4:30 AM, very abruptly, after approximately 5 – 5 ½ hours of sleep. Had not set alarm.
Had the residual image of my dream still in my head. Of course it was more than an image... In fact, there was an auditory component (as if one were hearing the sentence spoken), a visual component (as if one were seeing the sentence written on paper), and a meaning component (one's understanding of what the sentence actually meant.) For a short period, just after waking up, the three had a sense of unity – meaning, they felt the same, they felt as if they had the same meaning.
Only upon further waking did something (memory?) kick in which allowed the three elements to be parsed apart, which allowed for the recognition that in fact they weren't saying the same thing at all. The auditory element was roughly “The paycheck isn't coming back good.” The visual element was a sentence beginning with the word “It.” The meaning of both of these (which felt the same) was that my reference checks from previous employers were not coming back favorable.
The sense of unity these elements possessed was clearly not based on memory. But a sense of unity they had, and an unimpeachable one at that. Meaning, without memory to illuminate the subtle distinctions between the three elements of the seemingly-coherent experience, it might easily have been acted upon.
While waiting for memory to kick in – a process that always takes some time when I have been abruptly awakened, and a process of which I am aware – I desperately wanted to know the origin of that element of the dream. Was it a sign, or some indication of a subtle awareness on my part that there was (or was likely to be) a problem with one or more of my references? I remember waiting and waiting for memory to kick in, and when it finally showed up – which is to say, when the contents of episodic memory were finally available for conscious analysis – there was a distinct awareness of that information merging into the stream of consciousness. As if it were simply arriving late to the party, but mingling perfectly well with the throng once there.
After – not simultaneous with – the arrival of memory to the stream came the ability to imagine. To project and anticipate and visual completely hypothetical outcomes.
So distinct were these elements in there arrival to the stream of consciousness that it was as if I were seeing the 'waking up' of certain brain areas, or the removal of whatever obstacles had prevented them from feeding information into the dream state. What was clear was that I could not activate them immediately by will alone. I could query, but the response took time to arrive. For a time I simply had no access to the contents of episodic memory.
(end entry)
"Yet the human spirit is restless and nature forever compliant, willing to answer as yet undreamed questions, capable of opening up vast new vistas, revealing still undisclosed parts of her being."
The birth of a song and the death of a dream"
Sleep Journal
June 26th, 2011
Woke up at about 4:30 AM, very abruptly, after approximately 5 – 5 ½ hours of sleep. Had not set alarm.
Had the residual image of my dream still in my head. Of course it was more than an image... In fact, there was an auditory component (as if one were hearing the sentence spoken), a visual component (as if one were seeing the sentence written on paper), and a meaning component (one's understanding of what the sentence actually meant.) For a short period, just after waking up, the three had a sense of unity – meaning, they felt the same, they felt as if they had the same meaning.
Only upon further waking did something (memory?) kick in which allowed the three elements to be parsed apart, which allowed for the recognition that in fact they weren't saying the same thing at all. The auditory element was roughly “The paycheck isn't coming back good.” The visual element was a sentence beginning with the word “It.” The meaning of both of these (which felt the same) was that my reference checks from previous employers were not coming back favorable.
The sense of unity these elements possessed was clearly not based on memory. But a sense of unity they had, and an unimpeachable one at that. Meaning, without memory to illuminate the subtle distinctions between the three elements of the seemingly-coherent experience, it might easily have been acted upon.
While waiting for memory to kick in – a process that always takes some time when I have been abruptly awakened, and a process of which I am aware – I desperately wanted to know the origin of that element of the dream. Was it a sign, or some indication of a subtle awareness on my part that there was (or was likely to be) a problem with one or more of my references? I remember waiting and waiting for memory to kick in, and when it finally showed up – which is to say, when the contents of episodic memory were finally available for conscious analysis – there was a distinct awareness of that information merging into the stream of consciousness. As if it were simply arriving late to the party, but mingling perfectly well with the throng once there.
After – not simultaneous with – the arrival of memory to the stream came the ability to imagine. To project and anticipate and visual completely hypothetical outcomes.
So distinct were these elements in there arrival to the stream of consciousness that it was as if I were seeing the 'waking up' of certain brain areas, or the removal of whatever obstacles had prevented them from feeding information into the dream state. What was clear was that I could not activate them immediately by will alone. I could query, but the response took time to arrive. For a time I simply had no access to the contents of episodic memory.
(end entry)
"Yet the human spirit is restless and nature forever compliant, willing to answer as yet undreamed questions, capable of opening up vast new vistas, revealing still undisclosed parts of her being."
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Time Pressure
The future speaks to us in the language of the past. And no two people hear it the same.
Many years ago I participated in an ESP experiment. I use the vague term 'ESP' deliberately at this point because my experience during the experiment allowed me to examine competing ideas about what 'extrasensory' meant. I've previously written about this experiment, and briefly touched on the two competing hypothetical explanations: 1) Telepathy - I had some kind of 'access' to my partner's mind and/or the contents therein. 2) Futuresense - Identifying those images/ideas in my stream of consciousness that correlated strongly to my future subjective experience.
Here is what I wrote in my previous post... "The most vivid image that I 'received' was actually an image that my friend had drawn during the 'sending' phase of the experiment. After the judging and feedback portions of the experiment were complete, I had the opportunity to see these drawings and discuss the session with my friend. Naturally I had a strong reaction to that image when I saw the drawing of it, as it was the image I had 'received' during the experiment. Had I gotten that image telepathically from my friend? If so, why hadn't I gotten the actual target image telepathically? Or had I been drawing on my startled reaction to the image when I was casting about for information during the 'receiving' portion of my session? If so, why hadn't I pulled the target image, which I subsequently saw and knew to be the correct image? (And so on.)" In assessing my subjective experience during the testing phase and the feedback phase of the experiment, I came to prefer the futuresense explanation. (And it's actually a lot simpler than telepathy.)
I'm not going to pretend that I subsequently worked out a complete (positive) definition of psi/ESP. (And to be clear, I'm referring to what is commonly perceived to be a receptive faculty, as opposed to an influencing agent, although at some level this distinction may vanish.) In fact, I only mention this at all because I got suckered into watching Beyond Belief last night. What started me thinking was the reading that took place about 39 and a half minutes (hulu time) into the program. Bits of the reading were interspersed with feedback, including a relevant picture of David (the reporter's) mother. With my futuresense hypothesis in mind, I couldn't help but think that the psychic (Rebecca) had awesome future feedback to draw upon during the reading. Not only were relevant images and details given to the psychic immediately during the reading, but they were also broadcast on network television to a huge audience. [ASIDE: The huge audience is relevant when one wants to consider multiple observer hypotheses. And I'm of the opinion that you have to consider the effects of each observer, including the skeptical ones.] Contrast this to the type of feedback that the tarot card reader and palm reader received at around 18 minutes. For the purposes of this program, comparing the feedback that was given in Rebecca's success and in the skeptic's failure is like comparing apples to... well, rocks. But if psi/ESP is in some way a sensitivity to the 'flavor' of the future, then the proper way to test that is to give all psychics an equal amount (and quality) of feedback, regardless of whether they hit or miss.
Of course a proper skeptic would immediately point to the Sylvia Browne incident at 29:50, wherein Sylvia's reading to the couple was (painfully) incorrect. Surely the media coverage of that was comparable to Rebecca's feedback, right...? Hey, I don't have all the answers.
But I am very interested in developing a positive definition of psi/ESP, and I have to wonder... Is there an architecture in the brain that might be sensitive to influence from the (subjective) future? (For clarification, I'm not referring to an architecture in the sense of, say, the amygdala, but more along the lines of the microtubule.) From analyzing the subjective experience of psi/ESP, I would think that such an architecture would have to pervade the same regions of the brain that contain memory, as information acquired via psi/ESP appears to often (if not always) come as the activation of existing knowledge structures (memories). This may also explain why two people never have the same 'psychic' experience with respect to a given event; they are operating with a different set of knowledge structures and interconnectivity among the structures.
Is there a way to distinguish between the activation of this architecture in response to pressure from the future, as opposed to the influence of the past? I wouldn't necessarily expect to see an architecture that is dedicated to - will only respond to - influence from the future, but I would expect there to be a way to differentiate the influences of past and future within an overall pattern of signalling.
How does this hypothetical architecture change as one becomes more 'sensitive' to the influence of the future? I'm drawing primarily on my own subjective experience (again) in suggesting that, over a period of time, and with practice, some relationship between signals from the past and the future is/can be modified. This results in what is effectively a 'signal boost' for information/influence from the future. It also fits the pervasive meme that one can learn how to become psychic, and can develop ESP abilities with practice.
Overall, in watching the program last night (and again this morning for the purposes of obtaining names and time markers), I saw such a confusion of information and methodology that it doesn't surprise me that skeptics find it impenetrable and want to chuck it all out the window. But perhaps the better approach is simply to search for the commonalities of experience amidst the chaos of expression. Is sensitivity to elements one's own subjective future one such commonality?
I realize that I'm not saying anything particularly new with this post. But every once in a while you just have to stir the pot. Bonus points if you boosted a signal to get here. ;)
Many years ago I participated in an ESP experiment. I use the vague term 'ESP' deliberately at this point because my experience during the experiment allowed me to examine competing ideas about what 'extrasensory' meant. I've previously written about this experiment, and briefly touched on the two competing hypothetical explanations: 1) Telepathy - I had some kind of 'access' to my partner's mind and/or the contents therein. 2) Futuresense - Identifying those images/ideas in my stream of consciousness that correlated strongly to my future subjective experience.
Here is what I wrote in my previous post... "The most vivid image that I 'received' was actually an image that my friend had drawn during the 'sending' phase of the experiment. After the judging and feedback portions of the experiment were complete, I had the opportunity to see these drawings and discuss the session with my friend. Naturally I had a strong reaction to that image when I saw the drawing of it, as it was the image I had 'received' during the experiment. Had I gotten that image telepathically from my friend? If so, why hadn't I gotten the actual target image telepathically? Or had I been drawing on my startled reaction to the image when I was casting about for information during the 'receiving' portion of my session? If so, why hadn't I pulled the target image, which I subsequently saw and knew to be the correct image? (And so on.)" In assessing my subjective experience during the testing phase and the feedback phase of the experiment, I came to prefer the futuresense explanation. (And it's actually a lot simpler than telepathy.)
I'm not going to pretend that I subsequently worked out a complete (positive) definition of psi/ESP. (And to be clear, I'm referring to what is commonly perceived to be a receptive faculty, as opposed to an influencing agent, although at some level this distinction may vanish.) In fact, I only mention this at all because I got suckered into watching Beyond Belief last night. What started me thinking was the reading that took place about 39 and a half minutes (hulu time) into the program. Bits of the reading were interspersed with feedback, including a relevant picture of David (the reporter's) mother. With my futuresense hypothesis in mind, I couldn't help but think that the psychic (Rebecca) had awesome future feedback to draw upon during the reading. Not only were relevant images and details given to the psychic immediately during the reading, but they were also broadcast on network television to a huge audience. [ASIDE: The huge audience is relevant when one wants to consider multiple observer hypotheses. And I'm of the opinion that you have to consider the effects of each observer, including the skeptical ones.] Contrast this to the type of feedback that the tarot card reader and palm reader received at around 18 minutes. For the purposes of this program, comparing the feedback that was given in Rebecca's success and in the skeptic's failure is like comparing apples to... well, rocks. But if psi/ESP is in some way a sensitivity to the 'flavor' of the future, then the proper way to test that is to give all psychics an equal amount (and quality) of feedback, regardless of whether they hit or miss.
Of course a proper skeptic would immediately point to the Sylvia Browne incident at 29:50, wherein Sylvia's reading to the couple was (painfully) incorrect. Surely the media coverage of that was comparable to Rebecca's feedback, right...? Hey, I don't have all the answers.
But I am very interested in developing a positive definition of psi/ESP, and I have to wonder... Is there an architecture in the brain that might be sensitive to influence from the (subjective) future? (For clarification, I'm not referring to an architecture in the sense of, say, the amygdala, but more along the lines of the microtubule.) From analyzing the subjective experience of psi/ESP, I would think that such an architecture would have to pervade the same regions of the brain that contain memory, as information acquired via psi/ESP appears to often (if not always) come as the activation of existing knowledge structures (memories). This may also explain why two people never have the same 'psychic' experience with respect to a given event; they are operating with a different set of knowledge structures and interconnectivity among the structures.
Is there a way to distinguish between the activation of this architecture in response to pressure from the future, as opposed to the influence of the past? I wouldn't necessarily expect to see an architecture that is dedicated to - will only respond to - influence from the future, but I would expect there to be a way to differentiate the influences of past and future within an overall pattern of signalling.
How does this hypothetical architecture change as one becomes more 'sensitive' to the influence of the future? I'm drawing primarily on my own subjective experience (again) in suggesting that, over a period of time, and with practice, some relationship between signals from the past and the future is/can be modified. This results in what is effectively a 'signal boost' for information/influence from the future. It also fits the pervasive meme that one can learn how to become psychic, and can develop ESP abilities with practice.
Overall, in watching the program last night (and again this morning for the purposes of obtaining names and time markers), I saw such a confusion of information and methodology that it doesn't surprise me that skeptics find it impenetrable and want to chuck it all out the window. But perhaps the better approach is simply to search for the commonalities of experience amidst the chaos of expression. Is sensitivity to elements one's own subjective future one such commonality?
I realize that I'm not saying anything particularly new with this post. But every once in a while you just have to stir the pot. Bonus points if you boosted a signal to get here. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
