> > Even if it was a personal slam. I don't care. I just try to get people to > explore consciousness in a scientific manner. After all, you can conduct > experiments in "consciousness space" without using oscilloscopes ... it's > all about repeatability and verifiability - right?
I'm glad you didn't take it personally. Experiments are fine, but having a repeatable and verifiable subjective experience only shows that your subjective experience is consistent. It does not show that your subjective experience is connected in any way to objective externalities. To do so, it is not enough to show that each person experiences the same sort of thing under the same conditions. You must also show that you can affect each other exclusively through that medium. If you could come up with a repeatable experiment that showed, for example, that people could communicate concrete information with each other through "consciousness space" without using any sort of side channel in physical reality, then you would have evidence that this "consciousness space" was part of our shared objective reality and not something exclusively subjective. But your current evidence isn't enough to convince, because there are other explanations that don't require us to make significant changes to our own existing world models. All of the evidence you have put forth so far can be dismissed as unusual brain activity. Show me the money. Put together an experiment that connects two or more people's "consciousness spaces" in a way that can't be explained away as merely unusual brain activity. Then you will gain some credibility to your assertions. On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:17 AM, justcamel <[email protected]> wrote: > It has profound consequences for all of us and WE can experience it every > single day. You just have to calm your mind beyond the threshold where it > no longer confuses "input" from the implementation realm (your body) and > where it becomes "open" to direct input from the host system (where your > consciousness "resides"). It just takes some training. We are not used to > interpreting "raw data" and tend to bias it at first. The very first times > you experience it you only get a few seconds of data and your consciousness > will shift back into the implementational world. > > It's like you stop playing WoW for a second ... look out of the window in > the more profound reality and "real" rays of light scare you a bit so you > shift your consciousness back into the reality you are used to. It takes > some practice and it's weird/scary in the beginning. > > Even if it was a personal slam. I don't care. I just try to get people to > explore consciousness in a scientific manner. After all, you can conduct > experiments in "consciousness space" without using oscilloscopes ... it's > all about repeatability and verifiability - right? > > Ben isn't trying to sell you anything when he writes about the > non-locality of mind. He experienced "consciousness space" first hand and > just points out his findings. Language and arguments can not make us > understand but we can gather first hand experience ourselves once we > overcome the "It's all bullshit and you are all stupid idiots and high on > some solvent." approach. > > There have been very simple minded people realizing this and now there are > highly intelligent (in an academic sense) people who realize it as well. > Their explanations help us to question our contemporary understanding of > reality. A random rice farmer talking about all of this in "weird" Hindu > terms will not manage to penetrate our cultural indoctrination and our > perceived intellectual superiority. People like Ben, who are using > metaphors and analogies which resonate with us much more, are having a > bigger impact. > > That's why I recommend Campbell's book. His model might not be correct in > every detail but it helps us to understand the bigger reality. The more > people there are exploring consciousness in a scientific way the better our > understanding will become. > > On 22.10.2015 03:23, Aaron Hosford wrote: > > It's a completely untestable claim that you're making. If we can't see it, > can't touch it, can't experience it, can't measure it, and it doesn't > affect us in any way, then my question to you is: Who Cares? Right or > wrong, it's of no consequence to us and it's beyond our capabilities. In > that sense, you really are disconnected from reality *even if you are > right*. This isn't a personal slam against you, so please don't take it > that way. I'm just explaining how I see it, and how (I think) Mike sees it, > too. > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
