Mind/Brain Separation

[RideTheWalrus]

I posted this on the OBE section of the forum because I believe that the question of whether these experiences are real or mere constructs of the brain is at the very heart of the subject. Materialists believe that these out of body experiences are not real experiences, and that they happen purely within our brains. As one who has had several out of body experiences, one of which I was able to verify physically, I could not disagree more. Consciousness has never been proven to be processes of the brain. The hard problem is still very much unsolved. The idea that we are our brains is an assumption based on the observable correlations between the brain and consciousness - but as any scientist will tell you, correlation does not prove causation. My personal view is that the brain is a filter for consciousness. This view has been articulated well by Cyril Burt: “The brain is not an organ that generates consciousness, but rather an instrument evolved to transmit and limit the processes of consciousness and of conscious attention so as to restrict them to those aspects of the material environment which at any moment are crucial for the terrestrial success of the individual” This view does not conflict with neuroscience, because it does not discount any of the correlations we have observed surrounding the brain - it simply interprets them in a different way. For example, is the brain activity correlated with certain states of consciousness the measure of consciousness, or the measure of the brain responding to consciousness? When you take a drug, is the effect on consciousness caused by the brain altering the way it produces consciousness or does the drug merely alter the brain's ability to regulate consciousness which consequently produces the change? When you hit your head, does it cause a mechanical change in the brain which translates to consciousness, or does it cause a mechanical change in the brain which alters the way the brain regulates consciousness? I believe this alternative way of viewing the brain works better than the materialist model because it does not have to discount the subjective experiences of millions of people as 'impossible'. It also solves many mysteries of neuroscience (which by themselves are enough to throw the whole materialist view into question). Mysteries such as acquired savant syndrome, where brain damage actually results in vastly increased mental abilities. Or in cases of severe hydrocephalus where people live normal lives with only a small fraction of the brain mass of the average person. There was a high profile case of this in the news a couple of years ago - the article was called "Tiny brain normal life." In severe cases of hydrocephalus patients can be left with less than 5% of the brain mass of a normal person - but even in these severe cases there are people who have above average IQs – some actually have very high IQs and seemingly no mental deficits. Again, this is easily explainable for those who believe consciousness to be separate from the brain, and much harder to explain for materialists. The last example I'll bring up here is terminal lucidity, where people with severe brain damage who can’t remember the names and faces of family members suddenly become lucid and able to think, remember, and speak clearly as their death nears – despite the fact that the brain damage supposedly responsible for their affliction is still very much present. All of these are well documented. TLDR: I believe that mind and brain are separate, and that true out of body experiences are real experiences that take place outside of the body. How about you?

[shadowofwind]

I agree that current ideas about the brain are inadequate to account for people's experiences. And I agree that out of body experiences are in some sense real. I don't think your statements about the brain's relationship to consciousness can survive reasonable scrutiny either however. You say that the brain has a 'filtering' function, but then proceed to make several claims to the effect that mental function can be maintained or enhanced when the brain is severely damaged. What good then is the 'filtering' if its not necessary to human intelligence? If its possible to maintain functionality without all that extra brain stuff, why can't we just do without it? All the stuff on the motherboard of your laptop is there for a reason. And yet, by removing a lot of it you could run at a much higher clock rate. Improved function! Does the computer's functionality therefore not depend on what is on the motherboard? By simplifying the computer, you reduce its flexibility and resilience. Software is like this also: 90% of it is there to handle situations that are rarely if ever encountered, and by removing all that extra stuff you could make the remaining part of it run better. And yet, most of that stuff is there for a reason, because when you need it, you really need it. Likewise for the brain, or for practically any other complex mechanism. I can't explain consciousness, and I agree that the 'materialist' explanations don't work. But I don't think that dualistic handwaving explanations work either. Its an unsolved problem for us. The 'supernatural' mental experience that I've had can reach into something like past and the future. I think it still has some kind of physical seat however, even if it can extend beyond that seat. Memory itself seems to me to be almost synonymous with matter, so it seems to me that any angelic entity that has memory must have a physical body of some kind someplace and somewhen, even if that body and the matter it is made of is very different from our own. Gotta go.

[Tranquil Toad]

What you described in your post, RideTheWalrus, mirrors my own thinking. I am unsure as to why a greatly reduced brain mass would result in no loss of intelligence, however. Were there any other detrimental effects, like reduced sensory acuity, memory loss, behavioral changes? While I agree that the brain "filters" consciousness, perhaps we are just a little off the mark as to what its primary jobs really are. Another thought would be that different sections of the brain have different roles, so perhaps these people were missing sections that would be somewhat ancillary, and the section responsible for cognitive thought were left in tact. Here is my perspective on the brain and its role in consciousness. I hope this translates into words well. First of all, the apparent separation of consciousness and matter is an illusion. Everything is consciousness, it is just that consciousness has different frequency rates which result in different experiences. By analogy, when one changes h20 from a vapor, to a liquid, to a solid, you are slowing down the rate of movement of the particles in that substance. When the particles are moving very quickly, they are in less of a fixed pattern (vapor,) but when you slow them down enough they begin to form a solid object (ice.) This is how consciousness works. There are many levels, or frequency ranges of consciousness, that vibrate at a much quicker rate than physical reality, and thus have more freedom and would be experienced as less "solid." For example, your dreams take place at a higher frequency domain than your physical waking life, and as you know dreams are much less "solid" than waking existence. Well everything you see around you is consciousness which has been lowered into a frequency range where it appears as solid material. It has formed a relatively fixed pattern. Nevertheless, it is alive, and aware. Even a rock is alive. So lets begin to tie this into the mind/brain separation. Your mind actually exists as sort of a second body which is at a higher frequency range than your physical body. This is what people call an energy body, or chakras, or perhaps a mental body. It is at a higher frequency domain, so it is not normally visible in your waking life, but it is in constant connection with your physical body, and your brain. You can think of russian dolls, with one body inside another. Or you can think of changing a radio station until one station begins to blur into the next. Much of what you think of as "you," in terms of emotional patterns, responses to situations, general personality, ect, is due to the configuration of this energy body. What happens is the brain access and interfaces with this second body sort of like a keyboard and monitor would access a hard drive (like you stated in your analogy.) So much of the actual experience you have as a physical being is a result of the brain. Just as the information on your monitor only looks that way because of the monitor, your experience "looks" the way it does because of the brain. I will give an example. Imagine, in your energy body, you have a pattern of anxiety in social situations (i know this one from experience...) This would be an energy configuration of your 2nd and 3rd chakras. Now when presented with a social encounter, your body and brain "reads" this like the monitor reading the hard drive. The body's response is to tense up in the solarplexus or chest area, and the minds response is to generate thoughts (usually verbal or images) related to anxiety ("I wonder what this cute girl thinks about me right now, god I hope I don't smell like B.O") See how much the presentation is a result of the body and brain, but the consciousness didn't come from the brain. By becoming in tune with your own thought patterns and bodily feelings, combined with knowledge of the different energy nexuses of this secondbody how they relate to various levels of consciousness, you can gain a very clear understanding of yourself. Now it gets a bit tricky when trying to pin point what causes what, in regards to direct action on the brain which results in personality change (drugs, head trauma and such.) I would imagine that the lines of communication go both ways. For instance your keyboard can alter the data on your hard drive, so taking a drug which effects the brain could temporarily reconfigure your energy body. Or perhaps in the case of severe trauma, simply cause the keyboard to malfunction so it no longer has quality communication with the hard drive. So to sum that all up, mind/consciousness is not separate from matter/body/brain, it is one level of consciousness communicating with another level of consciousness. Higher frequency (mind/energy body) communicating with lower frequency (brain/body.) Oh and just as an sort of aside, what you see in front of you is not what reality looks like objectively. It is your brains interpretation of the consciousness it is viewing. Your walking around in your own head.

[shadowofwind]

consciousness has different frequency rates which result in different experiences. By analogy, when one changes h20 from a vapor, to a liquid, to a solid, you are slowing down the rate of movement of the particles in that substance. When the particles are moving very quickly, they are in less of a fixed pattern (vapor,) but when you slow them down enough they begin to form a solid object (ice.) This is how consciousness works. There are many levels, or frequency ranges of consciousness, that vibrate at a much quicker rate than physical reality, and thus have more freedom and would be experienced as less "solid." For example, your dreams take place at a higher frequency domain than your physical waking life, and as you know dreams are much less "solid" than waking existence. Maybe you can clear up a point of confusion for me....One trouble with this analogy, is that water vapor is not necessarily moving faster than water, which is not necessarily moving faster than ice. The difference is one of entropy, or order. The velocity and kinetic energy of a cloud of vapor is that same as for six blocks of ice moving in different directions. The only difference is one of arrangement. An individual water molecule does not have a 'state' or 'phase', it can only be solid, liquid, or gas relative to another molecule. And when multiple molecules are involved, a particular molecule can be 'solid' relative to some at the same instant it is 'liquid' or 'gaseous' relative to others. Heat energy is the same as kinetic energy, constrained by collisions, chemical bonds, and other forces of attraction. So it doesn't make much sense to say that 'vibrating at a higher frequency' corresponds to a change of state for water. In fact, generally speaking, the molecules in a solid vibrate at a much higher frequency than in a gas, since their movement is constrained by chemical bonds or other close attractions. This being the case, I'm having a hard time seeing how to apply the analogy to higher states of matter, since the description doesn't make sense for coarse matter like water either. When people speak of higher vibrational frequencies for higher states of matter, they must be talking about something else. So can you explain what you mean by 'frequency rates' in a different way, taking into account what I just said? Incidentally, one of my shared-thought experiences this year related to this very question. I had mentally made the same statements that I just made here, except applying it to the idea of yin-yang 'balance', which is also often described by analogy with solid/liquid/gas states. In those descriptions, solid is passive, liquid is passive-active, and gas is active-passive. The night after I had this thought, my sister had a dream about it raining on account of acidity being anisotropic, which made no sense to her. But it makes sense to me as a critique of my thought, the point being that the idea of balance for a thought is actually more analogous to acidity than it is to kinetic energy or 'state'. I agree that we are walking around in our own heads. There is an objective reality, sort of, but the world we experience is like a cartoon representation of it. I think this point is also highly relevant as a step towards better understanding astral experiences.

[Tranquil Toad]

O.K bare with me because chemistry and physics are not my forte, I was using that mainly as an analogy but I will try to work this out. From my understanding you are slightly off the mark. You said that "the molecules in a solid vibrate at a much higher frequency than in a gas, since their movement is constrained;" while I understand it to be that when the particles are vibrating slowly, this allows them to form patterns and lock together, hence the order - and when their speed increases they begin to break their bonds and there is less pattern or structure, hence entropy. Quote off answers.com "Solid particles vibrate while locked in place. As they receive more energy, particle speed increases. Once the particles have enough energy they break apart and slide past each other as a liquid. The particle speed continues to increase as energy is added. Finally, they gain enough energy to break free and move independently as a gas." Even if the individual molecules in a solid were moving no slower than in a gas, an important point is - as you said - their motion relative to each other. So an single particle may not be moving faster, but their combined interaction would produce a higher frequency when they were no longer linked closely together. This may not translate well into physics as I do not know if modern physics describes things this way - most of this comes from personal, intuitive understanding which I am trying to put in a physics framework. Matter is not made out of solid little balls, it is a relational energy system. For example, if you look at a body of water, the ocean, what you see is a fluid system with no actual boundaries to it. Hence a large wave will have many smaller waves upon its surface, and these waves will have even smaller waves upon them, and so on. There is no boundary between one wave and the next; they flow into each other, and combine to make larger waves. Motion upon motion upon motion. Chemistry's description of matter as little solid balls combining to make molecules is a symbol or interpretation of interactions between these waves. Nothing is separate, all is relational or interactions. Yin Yangs upon Yin Yangs. So if you have a solid like ice, perhaps the individual molecules are not moving more slowly, but they have combined to form an overall pattern which is very rigid, therefore very slowly moving. The closely bound particles do not allow for the larger, scaler level which they make up to have much movement. Using the ocean analogy, the combined waves have formed a larger slow moving wave do to the rigidity of their interactions. Hence my description of matter as energy which has bound itself into a pattern, therefore decreasing the overall rate of movement or frequency. Not sure if that made sense in words... As for an objective reality, what you have is, again, relational. Everything is consciousness. When consciousness interacts with itself, it produces experience. So put simply, when I look at you I create a symbol to represent you, and when you look at me you create a symbol to represent me. See how there is nothing objective there? It is points of view, perspectives of awareness interacting with each other. Like a Yin Yang, the interaction creates both perspectives. So when you interact with a rock, you get your perspective of the rock, and when the rock interacts with you it gets its perspective of you. The whole thing is an idea, a thought, a dream. Nothing exists outside experience. Found a good video which illustrates it. See how at first the entire structure is moving very rapidly, but when it combines into ice it has formed a pattern, and therefore is moving more slowly. The rate of interaction has decreased, so the wave which the particles make up as a whole no longer has freedom of movement.

[shadowofwind]

So an single particle may not be moving faster, but their combined interaction would produce a higher frequency when they were no longer linked closely together. .... Hence my description of matter as energy which has bound itself into a pattern, therefore decreasing the overall rate of movement or frequency. You seem to be treating velocity and vibration as if they are the same idea. Even though the gas molecules move at a higher velocity, they're not vibrating at a higher frequency than the ones in the solid. They're not vibrating at all in quite the same sense, since their motion isn't constrained in the same way. And if their collisions and changes in direction are to be considered vibration, they're vibrating considerably more slowly as a gas than as a solid, since they're less dense. There's no sense in which the gas has a higher vibrational frequency than the solid, even though relative velocities of the particles are higher. Maybe this seems like getting to hung up on words, but the point is that the gas is not vibrating, not at all in the sense that seems to be assumed when people talk about vibrations in a metaphysical context. Matter is not made out of solid little balls, it is a relational energy system. The treatment of matter as little balls is called 'semi-classical', and competent physicists don't think of it that way either. Its a first order approximation of the way the 'energy relates', and its used in appropriate circumstances with a clear awareness of its limitations. Unfortunately, by the time this stuff filters down to undergraduate physics classes and popular culture, it has been changed into something that doesn't make as much sense. For example, if you look at a body of water, the ocean, what you see is a fluid system with no actual boundaries to it. But underpinning that apparent and approximate smooth boundlessness, there are still those little energy knots which are approximated as particles, and those particles actually determine the macroscopic properties of the fluid. For example, the viscosity of the fluid is determined at the particle level. The boundaries between the particles have not actually disappeared for the body of water, they're just not being noticed. The wavelike behavior of the electrons of the different particles is still incoherent. If they were coherent, meaning (sort of) that the boundaries have disappeared, it would no longer be a fluid. Similarly, if a person wants a clear understanding of how astral matter relates to common matter, eventually it has to make sense that level also, which is what I'm trying to get to. Another part of my goal is to try to erode the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between 'materialist' and 'spiritual' ways of looking at the world, because that misunderstanding produces a destructive alienation. The so-called materialist view, as understood by 'spiritual' people, is actually a gross caricature of a more subtle view, and vice versa. But even the more subtle views contain fundamental misconceptions, which is why those worldviews degenerate into caricatures in the eyes of other people who understand other aspects of the picture.

[Sageous]

Hey, thanks for the earth science/particle physics review guys -- very helpful! Seriously, it was, because of what Shadowofwind pointed out about how the things physicists study get translated very oddly by the time they reach pop culture. Vibrations is likely the most misinterpreted term, probably because pop-spiritual icons of yore were obsessed with vibrations. For those who care, the vibrations that particle physicists discuss have nothing to do with the vibrating universe Crowley or the eastern mystics may have discussed. Of course, I say that as a person who loves to entertain the other pop-mysticism notion that “everything is energy.” That said, here’s another thought for you that might unify the duality a smidge: What if consciousness is indeed a natural event, but only to the extent that nature accidentally invented it? In other words, the human brain evolved to a level where its activity transcended the needs of nature itself, and from that activity emerged sentience, and consciousness. In the course of that transcendence, or perhaps in the perfection of it, consciousness became a thing separate from nature, save for its need to be fueled (dare I say filtered?) by the brain during its time on earth. Now this idea might imply that there is no such thing as astral planes, but it also could imply that there is such a thing as a consciousness separated from the physical brain, and able to survive its demise (given a new source of ‘fuel’). It doesn’t imply this, but I also wonder if, in its position slightly beyond the realm of straight nature, consciousness is equipped to understand or explore what we would currently cal supernatural events. And here’s an anchor to hold this conversation on this site: If we master lucid dreaming, we may be mastering consciousness, and through that mastery finally understand the real nature of supernatural phenomena. So yes, Shadowofwind, it is not a good thing to choose sides in the materialism-spiritualism debate, because in their purity both sides are wrong -- as are their opinions of the other side. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. Trouble is, that middle is not fun for spiritualists, and unprovable to materialists.

[shadowofwind]

To whatever extent the vibrations of spiritualists are real, and to whatever the extent the vibrations of string theorists are real, those must be related. Because those vibrations would be the ones which would distinguish astral matter from other matter. With retrospect this is obvious, though I didn't realize it until Sagacious mentioned particle physicists. The vibrations of the string theorists are not at all like the differences between solid, liquid, and gas phases, but people would try to use that metaphor anyway if its the best one they've got.

[Sageous]

To whatever extent the vibrations of spiritualists are real, and to whatever the extent the vibrations of string theorists are real, those must be related. Because those vibrations would be the ones which would distinguish astral matter from other matter. Well, I guess I never thought about it like that, but I suppose logically you are absolutely right! Of course, a dark corollary of this is that string theory has been pretty much dismissed by reputable physicists as utterly unprovable (and, as we speak, a bit of a joke to all except those with very, very vivid imaginations) because there is no way to experimentally prove it. So yes, I suppose the two theories, scientific or mystical, hold about the same weight in the real world. ... but that -- string theory and the existence, I suppose, of an astral plane -- truly was the least of my points; in fact it wasn't a point at all, just a snarky note. Any chance the others might be considered? I think they're worth discussing...

[shadowofwind]

Its true that a handful of proponents of alternative approaches have criticized string theory, and that science journalists love the appearance of controversy. But as far as I've seen the mainstream of physicists have not turned against string theory, even though they don't call it that any more. I think they overly use the anthropic principle, which is a valid principle, but also a way of dismissing unanswered questions as unreal. To me it looks the same as what they do with the idea of randomness, but applied on a different scale. A virtue of string theory is that it has made the existence of exotic alternative universes the mainstream assumption. That's a significant step towards accommodating the existence of higher realms, even though currently there's no understood way to connect any of those realms with ours. H.W. Percival's version of Theosophy organizes everything around a zodiac which has a 'nature' side and an 'intelligent' side. In his scheme, consciousness is not regarded as a part of nature. The distinction looks a little bit contrived to me, in that his zodiac looks to me like two nested cycles from unmanifest to manifest and back again, unrolled over 12 points. His distinction between 'nature matter' and 'intelligent matter' looks to me like a particular case of unmanifest vs manifest. But I don't have a strong opinion on the question. In mathematics, very simple structures like the complex plane have a lot of amazing properties that spring naturally from what they are. It appears likely to me that consciousness is similar, in that its not necessary to reach outside of nature to explain it, as if special properties must all be made out of special invisible substances. Paradoxically, the 'spiritual' view that regards the soul and other such things as separate essences appears to me to reflect a materialist streak in imagination. Something like Tranquil Toads 'everything is energy' view makes more sense to me, with energy itself just being a way of describing the interrelationships, and not having any 'substance' outside of that. But I don't have a strong opinion on this question either, being far, far more ignorant on such matters than knowledgeable. I think my view could very easily be more wrong than correct. I never had a high regard for Crowley, but I've been told that his stuff is not all of equal quality, and I haven't read all of it. Certainly his Tarot deck shows psychic talent. I'd say more but I'm trading writing against sleeping again, and my brother is visiting for the weekend. I'll have more time in two weeks. Thanks for your thoughts, I feel like we're making some headway here, speaking for myself anyway.

[Sageous]

A virtue of string theory is that it has made the existence of exotic alternative universes the mainstream assumption. That's a significant step towards accommodating the existence of higher realms, even though currently there's no understood way to connect any of those realms with ours. In the hopes of getting this string theory stuff out of our system: the origin of those exotic alternate universes is based purely on pop-culture’s misinterpretation of string theory, which demanded 11 dimensions for the math to work -- those dimensions were simply mathematical inserts into a formula, and only pertained to the possible number of directions in which the math implied that the strings could move. The multiverse stuff came much later, and not necessarily from the minds of physicists. Again, all this is a lot of fun to consider, but is it sane to say something is real simply because you want it to be, or because you remember an event from your dreams that had to be an OBE or a visit to an astral plane? Doesn’t it make more sense to always be willing to accept the possibilities presented by a theory or an anecdotal event, and to search as hard as you can to find and prove those things, but to still question their reality until they have been proven? Call me skeptical, but until these things are somehow proven to me or by me to exist, to take them on faith is, well, simply choosing a new religion. Don't we have enough of those?

[Sageous]

Now I have another thought that hopefully will bring us back to RidetheWalrus’ original thought, and hint to Shadowofwind that maybe I really am a wild-eyed romantic (or a raving lunatic): Set aside for a moment notions of duality and all that other philosophical crap, and consider something a little different. What if thought itself does not fit into nature? Think about it. As I mentioned somewhere above, thought could be an accident of nature. Human consciousness developed so much complexity over time that we became aware of ourselves -- sentient -- and in that moment transcended nature itself. Again I am not talking about consciousness here; every living thing has some level of consciousness, and consciousness is surely a natural event. I’m talking about sentience, and the actual creation of thoughts. Take this one step further: What if whenever we have a conscious thought, any thought, we are creating a new bit of energy that never existed before (again, I am not talking about the physiological event of firing neurons, etc; I’m talking about the actual thought itself)? That is supposed to be physically impossible -- we have been told that energy cannot be created, only transformed or redirected. So we’ve got these new bits of energy that exist completely outside the realm of science -- they can’t be real, since current science holds no place for energy formed from nothing -- but could be very real. Plus, these bits of energy are products of our own minds, and thus are unique to each of us. What if they, being similar in energy signature, could accumulate into a larger, more powerful collection of energy? Imagine, if you will, the construction of a soul, or the construction of directed thought forms* that can influence nature, or be used to communicate instantly with other consciousnesses? Since it doesn’t follow science’s rules, thought energy might be able to move faster than light, or rather simply exist anywhere it wants to, regardless of the Standard Model, so we could certainly use it to wander to other dimensions, or to link consciousnesses of people separated by much space and perhaps time. Well-disciplined minds might even be able to create whole new worlds that could be shared with other minds. Which brings me round, if anyone is still with me, to the conversation: perhaps thought itself is the thing that is separate from the physical body, the force that makes all those impossible things possible. Consciousness is a function of the brain, but sentience has created an energy that exists outside of nature itself, and, through our individual self-awareness and discipline, could possibly become a tool for creativity, communication, and exploration that simply never before existed? Just a thought. Keep in mind that I just tried to compress about 40,000 words worth of info into about 400, so all apologies if none of it makes any sense. Also, I must admit that none of this is original -- the Buddhist and Hindu mystics have been considering this sort of thing for centuries. So maybe some portion of the mind separates itself from the brain in a very real way, and from that separation come the things we love to explore here. The really cool part? Lucid dreaming is an outstanding tool for exploring and perhaps even proving this separation! *Thought energy might actually be used to influence nature, perhaps in very impressive ways (imagine, for instance, being able to insert a few drams of thought energy into the nucleus of an atom, perhaps affecting the charges or spin of the quarks -- BANG).

[shadowofwind]

In the hopes of getting this string theory stuff out of our system: the origin of those exotic alternate universes is based purely on pop-culture’s misinterpretation of string theory, which demanded 11 dimensions for the math to work -- those dimensions were simply mathematical inserts into a formula, and only pertained to the possible number of directions in which the math implied that the strings could move. The multiverse stuff came much later, and not necessarily from the minds of physicists. When I speak of exotic alternative universes, I'm not speaking of extra 'curled up' dimensions, or any idea derived from them. Its true that some people confound 'other dimensions' with 'parallel universes', as if they're the same concept. I'm not one of those people. The multiverse stuff came much later, and not necessarily from the minds of physicists. Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking are examples of two physicists who argue for the existence of parallel universes, including universes with physics different from our own. Although their arguments are simplified to the point of fallacy for the sake of their audiences, and are in other regards reasonably subject to criticism (I mentioned one of my criticisms, and I have others), those guys are definitely physicists. While in school, then when I worked at NASA, and later when contracting for AFRL, I had free access to most journals, so I could read papers. Though I am often wrong about stuff, if you're assuming that my statements are based on "pop culture misinterpretations" you may be jumping to conclusions before understanding what my thought is. I have had many, many experiences which absolutely can not be explained without the existence of some kind of interactions with parallel universes, or exotic matter, or something equally beyond current physics theory. I don't expect you to believe in those things, since your own experience doesn't support it. However, I don't think its reasonable for me to restrict myself only to beliefs that are supported by your experiences, disregarding my own. In theory, it may also be undesirable for other people to believe in 'higher worlds' if they themselves lack direct evidence. In that case you may wish me to refrain from speaking as if those things are real on the grounds that many other people can not know that directly. But the overwhelming majority of people base almost all of their opinions on things besides personal knowledge. For example, most people who believe in evolution don't actually understand it well enough to have an informed opinion, as is also the case of course with their critics. I don't see why I must defer to a cartel of intelligent idiots like Dawkins who believe that their own prejudiced experiences are the ultimate arbiter of human knowledge. Again, all this is a lot of fun to consider, but is it sane to say something is real simply because you want it to be, or because you remember an event from your dreams that had to be an OBE or a visit to an astral plane? Doesn’t it make more sense to always be willing to accept the possibilities presented by a theory or an anecdotal event, and to search as hard as you can to find and prove those things, but to still question their reality until they have been proven? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what I know. Again, I don't expect you to believe everything that I'm saying, it would be unreasonable for you to do that. But you seem to be challenging the way I arrive at conclusions as if that process is quite a bit different from what it actually is. As far as I can tell, the role of reason and objective evidence in my approach to the world is very, very similar to what it is for you. I question, searching for different alternatives and possible fallacies, until something is demonstrated to my satisfaction. Then I still keep my mind open, because I can mislead myself. And I keep questioning what I have already learned. But it would be crazy for me to spend my life endlessly going over the same ground without trying to break new ground also. I'm trying to understand the nature of these 'higher realms', or whatever they are, because they clearly affect me in a way that has a significant impact on my life. I can't afford to limit myself to what all other people are convinced of - that world is too small. Call me skeptical, but until these things are somehow proven to me or by me to exist, to take them on faith is, well, simply choosing a new religion. Don't we have enough of those? For you, speaking as if they are real might be 'taking them on faith'. For me, it is not. For you five years from now, it might not be. There's a difference between shunning religious faith, and assuming that any knowledge anyone else has that is not at this moment shared by you must be a matter of religious faith. If you're not doing that, then I apologize for implying it. I'm just responding in as straightforward a manner as I can to what you seem to be saying, with the awareness that I'm undoubtedly misinterpreting it at least to some degree. Gotta go, baby crying. More later, hopefully.

[shadowofwind]

To be able to do much with this, I might need to understand what you mean for something to be "outside" of nature while still being able to influence nature. In other words, what is your definition of nature? Clearly there's more to nature than what is captured by the Standard Model, which is incomplete. Though its not clear how much more. By way of analogy....gravity is a very weak force compared to electromagnetism. However, gravity is as important as it is because of the way its effects accumulate. Subtle, very hard to pin down effects that are not captured by the standard model could have very significant effects on the progression of events in nature, even if they do not accumulate in a way that is objectively obvious like with gravity. Typically, when I dream, the images are cobbled together from things that have recently been in my waking sensate experience. Beginning several years ago, the images are as likely to be taken from things that will be in my sensate experience within a few days. (Though this has become less likely again for the past 10 months or so.) It seems that the place where the dreams are formed can stand somehow outside of or above the causal flow of events. I don't think its a random coincidence that the moon appears to be the same size as the sun from the earth. And the anthropic principle doesn't fully account for it either, notwithstanding that a large moon is necessary for stabilizing the earth's axis of rotation. I'm not expecting anyone to agree with this statement, I'm just throwing it out there for consideration. If thought is not a part of nature, then it has existed apart from nature for a long time, assuming that our world is not the first one in our universe to give rise to thinking beings. So if thought can influence events, it would have been doing that for a lot longer than our earth has been around. It would in that sense be more a part of the way things naturally work, and less of a recent development. Typically, people think of our reality as being a consistent, integrated whole, so that if something 'random' happens, it happens in some objective sense for everyone. Clearly that is usually the case. But as far as I know, there is nothing in the mathematics of quantum theory that requires it to be that way. As far as what is required by the math, inconsistencies are also possible, where events take two different paths for two different observers, who are then able to share information about their inconsistent experiences. Although I'm far from an expert in quantum electrodynamics, I have talked to an expert in that area who confirms this. The reason this came up for me is I've had a few objectively verifiable experiences of this type. I didn't pursue more because I considered it better to just accept it at face value, due to the dislocating nature of those kinds of experiences. Also I'd previously developed some level of trust with the muse that created the experiences, though this isn't something I can hope for someone else to understand. I've mentioned this before elsewhere. The reason I'm mentioning it again here, is its an example of something fairly dramatic that is permitted by our mathematical models, but nevertheless assumed not to happen. Likewise with the premonitions - there's no violation of any causal or time travel principles there, provided that the information does not come through the mechanisms that are a part of the model. This is also a reason I posit the existence of parallel worlds: it seems more plausible to me for the information to come from the 'present' of other similar worlds than for it to come from the 'future' of our world. I'm sure that the truth isn't quite that though. Another thing which is permitted by our physics models is for the past to change as long as it changes in a way that is causally consistent with the present. Actually, as far as I know, there is no fixed past: all possible histories that lead to the present state are equally real. This being the case, the present can spontaneously change also, without violating any laws, as long as the past moves with it. The present state can drift, or jump discontinuously, and there's no way to tell objectively, since our memories move with it. It seems to me that rather than there being a single strand of history, there is a very closely packed collection of histories that all lead approximately, but not precisely, to the same state. There is an element of freedom or ambiguity, one form of it being reflected in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I don't think that particles could even exist or interact without that ambiguity. And I don't think that people could be conscious if their awareness of time and objects was not smeared out very slightly like that. At times, rather than experiencing a bundle of histories, I experience a looser bundle of more tightly bound bundles. Baby crying, gotta go.

[shadowofwind]

Continuing with my free hand....My point in the last paragraph there is that we're already aware of 'parallel worlds', we just tend to think of them as a single world because the ones we're aware of are really, really close together, adding coherently. But its possible to be aware of other coherent groups that are further away. In what sense those are real I don't know. It seems implausible to me that all possible outcomes permitted by our limited models exist someplace. There have to be additional constraints that we don't know about. About a year ago I had the following experience with my muse. In response to a question about its nature and identity, it said "you claimed to have created me for the purpose of communication between worlds", or something to that effect. It has only very rarely spoken to me directly and forcefully like that (I was awake at the time). I didn't know how to interpret this statement, since I was not aware of having made any such claim. But that statement might make a little more sense in light of what you just said about creating thought. I know it sounds crazy to speak of a muse or daemon in this era. But my experience doesn't conform to those expectations, and I don't fear losing face.

[Sageous]

For you, speaking as if they are real might be 'taking them on faith'. For me, it is not. For you five years from now, it might not be. There's a difference between shunning religious faith, and assuming that any knowledge anyone else has that is not at this moment shared by you must be a matter of religious faith. If you're not doing that, then I apologize for implying it. I'm just responding in as straightforward a manner as I can to what you seem to be saying, with the awareness that I'm undoubtedly misinterpreting it at least to some degree. Shadowofwind, you seem to be taking this conversation very personally. Please don't. My words are not meant to question your particular opinions, knowledge, experience, faith, or anything else. They are meant to profess mine. And my opinions, knowledge, experience, faith and whatever else are what will drive what I believe to be true. I deeply feel it should be that way for anyone, including you (as it seems to be). In other words, don't get so defensive; I'm only trying to move and build an idea, not attack yours personally. All apologies if you felt that way.

[shadowofwind]

Shadowofwind, you seem to be taking this conversation very personally. Please don't. My words are not meant to question your particular opinions, knowledge, experience, faith, or anything else. They are meant to profess mine. And my opinions, knowledge, experience, faith and whatever else are what will drive what I believe to be true. I deeply feel it should be that way for anyone, including you (as it seems to be). In other words, don't get so defensive; I'm only trying to move and build an idea, not attack yours personally. All apologies if you felt that way. I'm fine. E-mail is a bad medium for emotional nuance - its almost impossible to guess correctly. Just ignore anything that looks defensive, and the points that remain are still the ones I was trying to make in relation to your ideas and appeals. For instance: belief in 'higher worlds' is not a religious faith when a person has actual knowledge of such worlds. In any case, we agree that available ideas about higher worlds, or thoughts outside of nature, or whatever, are inadequate, and that its worth trying to build new ones. To whatever extent the thoughts you've shared here are new to me, it will take me a while to digest them and have additional things to say about them.

[Sageous]

Wow, Shadowofwind, that's a lot of stuff... fascinating too! Let me respond to a couple of things I spotted that might clarify what I tried to suggest earlier: To be able to do much with this, I might need to understand what you mean for something to be "outside" of nature while still being able to influence nature. In other words, what is your definition of nature? Clearly there's more to nature than what is captured by the Standard Model, which is incomplete. Though its not clear how much more. My definition of nature? I guess I'm referring to nature as the real world as science understands it. I suppose I could just say, "Look it up in the dictionary, because that is what I meant," since I was referring to nature as I assumed anyone would, archetypically speaking. I have no personal definition of it; to do so seems counter intuitive to me.. That said, I suggested that this thought energy is an energy that exists outside the laws of nature as we currently know them; so yes indeedy, if thought energy were "discovered" to exist, and then defined, it would certainly become a part of nature. Didn't intend to be mysterious there... If thought is not a part of nature, then it has existed apart from nature for a long time, assuming that our world is not the first one in our universe to give rise to thinking beings. So if thought can influence events, it would have been doing that for a lot longer than our earth has been around. It would in that sense be more a part of the way things naturally work, and less of a recent development. I couldn't agree more...I don't for a moment feel that we were the first critters to generate a thought in this universe -- or perhaps even on this planet. Typically, people think of our reality as being a consistent, integrated whole, so that if something 'random' happens, it happens in some objective sense for everyone. Clearly that is usually the case.... I'm not sure you were responding here (and in your previous post, for that matter) to something I said , but just in case: I used the examples of scientific knowledge and quantum physics in a very general manner, almost as throwaway lines to provide a jumping-off point for suggesting thought energy. I claim no substantial knowledge/experience in quantum physics, and was not trying to. I did not mean to challenge your knowledge of it, or dismiss anything the theorists say... in other words, in my opinion there is really is no need to defend quantum physics, string theory, nature, or anything else here. I was simply trying to present a slightly different idea that had, I felt, something to do with this thread. I was never trying to dismiss what is already known, or all the things we do not yet know. Really. If you spent all those words under the assumption that I was attempting to deny the existence of what you have experienced personally, I heartily apologize; I was not, and no one honestly could, do that. All I was doing was attempting, apparently very badly, to introduce an idea that I find intriguing, and that might have had a place here.

[Sageous]

I'm fine. E-mail is a bad medium for emotional nuance - its almost impossible to guess correctly. Just ignore anything that looks defensive, and the points that remain are still the ones I was trying to make in relation to your ideas and appeals. For instance: belief in 'higher worlds' is not a religious faith when a person has actual knowledge of such worlds. In any case, we agree that available ideas about higher worlds, or thoughts outside of nature, or whatever, are inadequate, and that its worth trying to build new ones. Agreed, on all counts. And speaking of email as a lousy medium for this sort of chat, I couldn't agree more, since I sent my last post before reading this one, and now see that I probably didn't need to do so...

[shadowofwind]

Sageous: I had not understood your use of the word nature. (Many other people draw the line in other places, since the 'standard model' isn't most people's standard of reference.) Using your definition, I agree that thoughts are definitely not entirely a part of nature. I hadn't intended my statement about our reality incorporating more than one physical branch as being an argument against anything. I was pointing out an area where the standard model doesn't account for something that it is possible to experience. That and my other statements were sketching a picture of sorts around the question of what nature is, since that was a prerequisite to understanding and judging what we were talking about. We weren't thinking about it the same way, but we're on the same page now.

[Sageous]

We weren't thinking about it the same way, but we're on the same page now. That's good news! More later, perhaps...

[Tranquil Toad]

Perhaps vibration could be defined as the number of interactions per given unit of time. I'd really have to know more about physics to put this together, but maybe it can serve as food for thought for someone who does. A vibration requires an interaction of polarities. A wave has a crest, and a dip. You pull a guitar string and it oscillates between up and down. So I assume that when physics describes atoms as having protons and electrons, that they are describing a vibration between polarities, and how many protons or electrons would be the amplitude of the wave in either a positive or negative direction. Maybe this is what string theory is getting at when they describe atoms as vibrating strings. I don't know much of anything when it comes to the interaction of molecules, so maybe someone could extend this idea up to that level. My guess is that the combined interactions of atoms would create a large system of waves or interactions which we would call molecules. Do molecules interact with some system of polarity? Given this idea as vibrations as interactions per unit of time, you would be right, gas would have a lower vibration than water. So my original metaphor isn't quite on the mark. This last part will go way off the deep end, but this is what I understand inwardly. The space you see between particles, or between visible objects, isn't nothing - its un-manifest energy/consciousness. Manifestation requires the interaction of polarities. You can only see what something is by contrasting it with its opposite. Again, the somewhat cliche but simple example of the yin yang; the dark only exists in contrast to the light. So a given atom has manifestation and is visible because it is vibrating between polarities. Even if the next atom were across the room, there would still be no separation between the two because that space binds them together. Picture a wave, and then a large section of still water between that wave and the next. That stillness where there is no motion or vibration - no polarity - would appear as a void. Yet it connects one wave to the other, they blend seamlessly into it. If you wanted to connect that to mysticsm, a Buddhist may talk of the void as a state of consciousness where there is complete unity, yet utter stillness.

[shadowofwind]

Your unmanifest is like the concept 'vacuum' in QED, though I wish they'd call it something else, since the popular meaning of that word is different. I've seen Theosophical schemes with nested levels of manifestation, where 'astral' is the unmanifest side of physical, and so on. I guess you'd need to be aware of the unmanifest side of astral for astral to seem like anything. I'll think about that more.