--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > As far as JH is concerned it is happening. > > > > > > But not long enough to be measured by any device > > > that tells you whether gravity is operating or not. > > > The only sign of something happening is the burst > > > of brain-wave "coherence" that happens the instant > > > before liftoff. > > > > According to JHs Pphysics of flying lecture the point > > of lift off *is* gravity being re-ordered. > > But how would you measure whether there was an instant > of gravity being reordered?
When someone takes off :-) Seriously though, that is the explanation given in the talk. What we need is a floater to settle it completely. Can't be much longer now surely....... > <snip> > > > Yeah, well... We did have one account way back on > > > alt.m.t from TM teacher Susan Seifert of actually > > > hovering, once. Very interesting description of > > > what it felt like. I've never been able to find it > > > again in the alt.m.t archives. > > > > I'll believe it when I see it and probably be sceptical > > then. In fact you'd have to film it and have every > > lab on earth check it for fraud before I'd consider > > it wasn't faked. > > Well, sure, that's a given. All we know from her > description is what she says about an experience > she had. But from what I know of her, she isn't > the faking type; regardless of what actually > physically took place, I'm sure she did have the > experience she described. It's just that what she > described isn't what I would have expected a > delusion of hovering to feel like. That's why I > found it so interesting. > > > As for experiencing it, I have done, totally effortless > > leaping about. One of the nicest experiences I ever had, > > like drifting through clouds of the sweetest heaven... > > But more easily explained as the awareness part of the > > mind being totally not focussed on what the body was doing, > > someone more credulous may attribute it to something rather > > more mystical don't you think? > > To me, there's something quite odd about the mental > repetition of a near-nonsense phrase generating > that kind of experience, even if it's explained > as you suggest. I think there's something quite odd about everything that happened from learning TM onwards! Talk about a weird trip. My flying course was full of out of body experiences and cases of rapid healing - some would say miraculous - including in myself. What caused it all or whether it would happen again I cannot say, it's that fleeting, non-repeatable nature of the unexplained that leaves it open to (mis)interpretation. No-one will ever see what I have and it's hard to take a reductionist attempt to fit my experience into what is already known. It doesn't stop me trying though, we are so good at kidding ourselves we don't have to be "not the faking type" to be the unintentionally gullible type and being in a belief system like the TMO is surely a headstart towards taking all sorts of strange stuff seriously. Or is it, or isn't it? > <snip> > > > Whole philosophical issue here of the reality status > > > of subjective experience, the extent to which it's an > > > "illusion." We might well be able at some point to > > > map the brain's rewiring down to the last synapse > > > without getting anywhere near the answer to that one. > > > > We are very close to it already without mapping the > > last synapse. We know how much brain activity is needed > > to trigger consciousness, where things are stored in the > > brain and even where consciousness arises. Only a matter > > of time before it's sussed completeley, > > I'm very dubious that anything we can map or measure > scientifically will tell us whether all subjective > experience is an illusion. (Just for one thing, it's > other brains doing the interpreting of the data.) Brains thinking about brains. That is a wild idea. Interesting that the brain doesn't instinctively know what it is. Greek brains thought that it was for keeping blood cool. One of the intersting bits of mind to observe is that parts of consciousness do things that the other bits aren't aware of. How does that work? How can part of my brain conjure up nightmares. And why bother? Consciousness is actually a very small part of what the brain does and isn't responsible for most of what we attribute to it. And it seems to take up not much room in the brain at all. Pretty amazing all the same. > <snip> > > > Same issue with psychedelics. I'm editing a book > > > recounting the author's extensive personal > > > experimentation with LSD where this comes up in > > > connection with experiences that are so fantastic > > > it seems highly unlikely, in an Occam's razor sense, > > > that they could have originated with anything > > > stored within the physical brain. > > > > Been there, a wild ride, I travelled in time, met god, > > became god, explored all past lives, and swam ina sea > > of infinity more times than I could count. > > And where is all that stored in your brain? Where did > the "data" of the experiences come from? I'd say it was invented in the same way that the dreaming mind conjurs up all sorts of fantastic stuff. Except it happens when you're awake. I'd always see greek gods in the clouds for instance. Really beautiful living statues with the same sort of religious awe you get when deeply transcending. Why gods? Maybe that's the language of the subconscious. You never see what you expect to see though, it's quite impressive what you can come up with at a moments notice. But the brain is like that anyway but with halucinogens it all gets turned up to 11. The sense get crossed too, smelling colour that's an interesting one. An illusion made out of illusions! But very similar to the smell of bliss one gets after meditation sometimes. There is so much interesting potential research here. > Love to hear what you think of the book when it comes > out; I'll let you know when it does if you're > interested. Guy's very analytical about all this stuff, > did a lot of studying up on various theories of what > goes on with psychedelics (which appear to be undergoing > a revival, BTW). Took around 50 trips over a period of > years, documented them at the time in a journal in some > detail. Not anything I want to try, but gee, it's > fascinating. Sure is, would like to read it. > Got bored > > of it in the end. I think it's the same sort of thing > > as TM but the mind is being forced to do it rather than > > by it settling down which makes it more intense but the > > loss of spatial dimension and the inability to keep track > > of time are very similar. > > Also quite a bit of correspondence to the TM model > of development of consciousness, but very haphazard, > confusing, often frightening and unpleasant, and, as > you go on to say, not lasting. > > > It's the way we usually create the illusion within > > ourselves of there being a three dimensional world > > that gets changed, the contents are removed or altered > > by the unconscious dreamscape taking over. > > No idea what you mean here--could you elaborate? Simply that the world we think we perceive is an illusion created from sense data. A large part of mental activity is in keeping this illusion accurate enough so we can get through the day. Drop a hit of acid and it all goes haywire with senses getting crossed and what seems like the part of the brain that does vision playing around and seeing what it can make of what's coming in. And you get to know what goes on deep down in your mind by the sort of things you see. There has to be an internal predeliction for something for it to be chosen as resembling what's out there and then the usual illusion gets transformed into gods, devils, something funny or sexy. We all have a different trip but it always sounds kind of similar, our shared unconscious perhaps. The quality of it depends a lot on how happy you are inside. I must've been very happy. Wild fantasies can get projected onto the world causing godlike delusion or severe paranoia. Close your eyes and you dream whilst still awake. Open them and the dream continues. Real spiritual highs can be reached too, they're simply a change in perception too I should think, and an excess of certain brain chemicals. > I think the > > Freudian idea of man subconsciously thinking himself > > superior or godlike in order to stay motivated is where > > all this spiritual stuff comes from. Some sort of drug > > or spiritual practise comes along and it cracks us open > > inside. It's all in the mind and the mind is in our heads. > > Or you could postulate that thinking oneself "superior > or godlike" comes from unconscious knowledge that one > *is* superior or godlike, knowledge that's usually > blocked from conscious awareness by the brain as > "reducing valve." > > (The knowledge would be not that "I" am superior or > godlike, but that "I," "thou," and "all this" is > That.) > > > Stop taking the tablets or saying your mantra and it all > > wears off. Sad but true. > > Psychedelics can bring about permanent changes in > outlook, if not one's consciousness per se. And > there are quite a few folks whose spiritual practice > did something to their consciousness that remains in > effect whether they continue that practice or not. Experience changes the mind for sure. But the high of acid wears off fast and even the gloss that TM puts on the world isn't as long-lasting as you'd hope. > Plus which, there's another buncha folks who report > major, permanent changes to their consciousness > without ever having taken drugs or engaged in a > spiritual practice. Some are closer to it than others I should think. > > > I'm pretty well convinced that the brain mediates > > > consciousness rather than creating it, that the > > > brain is a sort of "reducing valve," as Huxley put > > > it, for something infinitely (you should pardon > > > the term) vast. In this sense, "expansion of > > > consciousness" is a matter of getting the brain's > > > reducing function out of the way, neutralizing it, > > > bypassing it, evading it, shutting it down. > > > > I instinctively agree with you but intuition is > > absolutely the worst thing to rely on in matters > > of the mind because it's our brains that control > > it > > Circular reasoning here. You're assuming the truth > of your conclusion. If it *isn't* our brains that > control our intuition, the brain is the *last* thing > we can rely on. Did I say it's our brains that control it? No more than windows vista is controlled by the chip in this computer, it allows it happen but doesn't know or care whether it does or not. Gut feeling is a bad thing to go on as we are too good at kidding ourselves. > and the main motivating factor in the subconscious > > is the belief that we are going to live forever and > > that our lives are hugely significant in some way. > > We wouldn't bother getting out of bed if we thought > > any different surely? Perfectly normal paranoia. > > Existentialists seem to have solved that one pretty > neatly by finding the act of getting out of bed in > the absence of any reason to do so to be significant > in and of itself. > > (I've often wondered if the real hardcore existentialists > weren't enlightened without realizing it. If you squint > your eyes a little, the experiential perspective they > describe can be seen as isomorphic with descriptions of > enlightenment.) >
