Hilgard's hidden observer

2005-06-26 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Richard,

   Let me follow up on your suggestion: Assuming a personality is made up 
of multiple modules,does it necessarily follow that a hidden observer 
exist as a seperate entiry, or could it be that the usual single personality 
results from an entrainment (the modules become like oscillators that couple 
to each other) over the many modules?
   This idea predicts that if this entrainment mode is unstable and there 
are other possible metastale entrainment modes possible, then the 
personality that emerges is unstable; we get the symptons of 
multiple-personality disorder that makes personalities analogous to the 
metastable (phase space) orbits of a chaotic system.
   If no stable or metastable entrainments between the multiple modules 
obtain, we have the symptoms of autism. No?


Kindest regards,

Stephen

- Original Message - 
From: rmiller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: Have all possible events occurred?



At 10:22 AM 6/26/2005, Norman Samish wrote:


Stathis Papaioannou writes:  Of course you are right: there is no way to
distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process 
works
as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then 
there

will always be at least one version of you who will definitely experience
whatever outcome you are leaving to chance.  Probability is just a first
person experience of a universe which is in fact completely deterministic,
because we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live, and
because even if we could, we can only experience being one person at a 
time.
RM Comments: (1) I'll have to disagree with Stathis' (apparent) statement 
that probability is just a first person experience of a universe.
No proper foundation.  (2) Additionally, Stathis assumes that we cannot 
access the parallel worlds where our copies live.  Since no one
can even define consciousness, or isolate precisely where memory is 
located (or even what it is), there is no way we can preclude simultaneous
experience.  The best we can say is, we simply don't know.  And, (3), 
for the same reasons, we cannot say that we experience being one person
at a time.  There are numerous psychological models---neodissociationism 
being just one---that posit a personality made up of multiple modules, all 
interacting (somewhat) under the guidance of an executive, Hilgard's 
hidden observer.  Unless and until we fully understand how consciousness 
is linked to personality, we probably shouldn't preclude multiple or 
simultaneous experience. 




Re: Hilgard's hidden observer

2005-06-26 Thread rmiller

At 03:44 PM 6/26/2005, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Richard,

   Let me follow up on your suggestion: Assuming a personality is made 
up of multiple modules,does it necessarily follow that a hidden 
observer exist as a seperate entiry, or could it be that the usual 
single personality results from an entrainment (the modules become like 
oscillators that couple to each other) over the many modules?


Hilgard asked the entity that question more than a few times.  The hidden 
observer came across as quite normal-sounding. reasonable and real.  A 
Finnish psychologist by the name of Reima Kampmann made an extensive study 
of the phenomenon, but unfortunately published little--and what he did 
publish was never translated to any languages other than Finnish.  Bottom 
line: The hidden observer seems to be as real as such entities can be--or 
perhaps as real as some of the better business CEOs.  Certainly better than 
some of the former CEOs in the news lately.  Otherwise, it appears that the 
hidden observer phenom has not been studied in depth.  I haven't seen much 
published research.


   This idea predicts that if this entrainment mode is unstable and there 
are other possible metastale entrainment modes possible, then the 
personality that emerges is unstable; we get the symptons of 
multiple-personality disorder that makes personalities analogous to the 
metastable (phase space) orbits of a chaotic system.
   If no stable or metastable entrainments between the multiple modules 
obtain, we have the symptoms of autism. No?


Autism supposedly has been associated with structural changes based upon CT 
cans.  Beyond that I don't know enough about autism to comment.   Ornstein 
suggests that multiple-personalities are rather normal.  On the other hand, 
there are some great books out there about this complex and weird 
phenom.  For those who think the brain is just a complex radio set, 
multiple personality disorder can be thought of as merely having a crummy 
tuner (coil?) or a bad antenna.  Melvin Morse, a Seattle pediatrician 
suggested that there is an antenna of a sort--and it's located in the right 
temporal sulcus.   According to his books, this area also serves as some 
sort of ejection seat for the soul.  I wrote a novel a few years ago that 
hypothesized a specific EEG signal emanating from this area (resolved using 
a standard Fast Fourier Transform circuit.)  By monitoring the wavelet 
coming from this area, one could determine the time of exit for an OOBE.


Rich M



Kindest regards,

Stephen

- Original Message - From: rmiller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: Have all possible events occurred?



At 10:22 AM 6/26/2005, Norman Samish wrote:


Stathis Papaioannou writes:  Of course you are right: there is no way to
distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process works
as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there
will always be at least one version of you who will definitely experience
whatever outcome you are leaving to chance.  Probability is just a first
person experience of a universe which is in fact completely deterministic,
because we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live, and
because even if we could, we can only experience being one person at a time.
RM Comments: (1) I'll have to disagree with Stathis' (apparent) statement 
that probability is just a first person experience of a universe.
No proper foundation.  (2) Additionally, Stathis assumes that we cannot 
access the parallel worlds where our copies live.  Since no one
can even define consciousness, or isolate precisely where memory is 
located (or even what it is), there is no way we can preclude simultaneous
experience.  The best we can say is, we simply don't know.  And, (3), 
for the same reasons, we cannot say that we experience being one person
at a time.  There are numerous psychological models---neodissociationism 
being just one---that posit a personality made up of multiple modules, 
all interacting (somewhat) under the guidance of an executive, Hilgard's 
hidden observer.  Unless and until we fully understand how 
consciousness is linked to personality, we probably shouldn't preclude 
multiple or simultaneous experience.