Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Psi People Serge Patlavskiy Today at 8:02 PM To Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com Message body - Paul Werbos on Jan 17, 2018 wrote: >I am sorry that Serge and Dean were briefly like two ships in the night,  >addressing different issues, both important: (1) demonstrating that psi is  >real (where I basically just agree with Dean; (2) understanding how and  >why it works, SO THAT we have a basis for expanding and developing  >it further. . [S.P.] People, try to understand my arguments. What is called "bottom-up" approach, it is effective in Physics when the third-person approach is used and the physicists basically agree on the existence of such or other phenomenon (like piezoelectricity or Brownian motion). Here, we start from simple observations and collecting experimental data, then we generalize and systematize data and formulate the hypotheses, and only then we try to construct a theory which must be able to account for these data. . But, this approach does not work while we deal with consciousness-related phenomena. A researcher who studies own consciousness collects the data based on own experience. For example, I may record the case of premonition or time anomaly, but it is my privately experienced data and it can hardly be experienced by other persons in the way I did.  . Even in case somebody states that he/she has experienced similar phenomenon, this is of small help for me because, while describing the phenomenon in words, a lot of important details remain unuttered. In result, the stage of generalization and systematization becomes not passable. This means that, while applying a first-person approach, we cannot go from amassing data to a theory which explains these data. . Therefore, I have suggested a SOLUTION -- a kind of "top-down" approach. The key idea is that we have first to construct a meta-theory, and only then, within its limits, to try to construct a theory of consciousness. And only then, the ALREADY constructed version of the theory of consciousness can be used to account for the available consciousness-related phenomena and for planning more experiments. . I hold that the experiments in the field of consciousness studies have sense ONLY when their aim is to prove or disprove the ALREADY constructed version of the theory of consciousness. If we will aim just to collect data, then we will have no chance to explain them because of the extreme complexity of the object of study. Moreover, no amount of data (whatever good) could ever convince the skepticts. . To the point, a theory of consciousness is itself a product of certain thinker's consciousness. So, it must obey what I call the criteria of formal correctness. I mean that we can conclude whether the given version of the theory of consciousness is formally correct and, hence, whether it is worthy of our consideration YET before we will test its explanatory and predictive power (or against actual data). . And, finally. I hold that the psi-phenomena should not be treated as cases of mind-matter interaction. If being treated like this, no explanation can be ever found. Instead, I suggest to consider (formalize, understand, etc.) the psi-phenomena as cases of inter-system interaction. If being treated like this, the psi-phenomena will have a chance to be explained.  . The case is that, while on a meta-theoretical level, I have elaborated a special methods and system of models able to formalize the interaction between the whole complex systems like the system{organism} and the system{spoon} (or the system{another organism}, or the system{distant site}, etc.). The mentioned system of models (namely, the system of AS-DIS-DEC models) is based on the idea of integrated information system (or IIS for short) which makes the explanatory tools very complex. . With respect, Serge Patlavskiy From: Paul Werbos To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal Cc: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" ;  Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:44 PM Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Psi Thank you, Ram, for starting a new thread clearly marked "psi," to address the solid core question of how we explain paranormal experience. I am sorry that Serge and Dean were briefly like two ships in the night, addressing different issues, both important: (1) demonstrating that psi is real (where I basically just agree with Dean; (2) understanding how and why it works, SO THAT we have a basis for expanding and developing it further. Many years ago, in pondering the second question, I asked myself questions like: "Does QED allow the construction of a box smaller than a sphere of diameter one meter, capable of using quantum technology to pick remote sites anywhere on earth at will and send back an image of what is there?" Governments have spent billions on that kind of thing, and I don't see any sign of a hope of a possibility of doing it. If WE HUMANS can do it (as in the huge literature on remote viewing), how could we explain it , in a way which helps us do it better? I am sorry, Ram, but I don't see how attaching words like "consciousness" to fields like the fields of QED and EWT would make the explanation easier, or the device constructable, either by machines or in biology. The sheer switching capability involved in picking a remote part of the earth, or, even more, tapping into thoughts far away, is ONLY plausible in my view, if it exists as a property of an EVOLVED COMPLEX BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM CONNECTING those remote locations with our location. In short, it requires a "noosphere," a living "brain" based on something OTHER than the familiar fields of QED. Since we know that dark matter is more plentiful than ordinary matter in our cosmos, and we now know that it forms a kind of vast connected ocean, this is actually a very natural and logical explanation, once you get used to it. One would actually EXPECT evolution to lead to bodies, brains and consciousness in such an ocean of life anyway; the idea that we are CONNECTED to such a noosphere brain is just as plausible as any of the other proposed answers I have heard to Fermi's paradox. (Brin's pleasant novel Existence includes a nice review of the others.)  I do hope that some of you would be interested in following up on that approach and what it implies, citing: [1] P. Werbos, Unification of Objective Realism and Spiritual Development, http://scsiscs.org/conference/index.php/scienceandscientist/2017/paper/view/166/53 [2] David Brin, Existence, Tor Books, 2012 [1] is not just an abstract explanation; in fact, it points to operational possibilities for trying to enhance paranormal and spiritual development, presented (if slightly veiled) in my 2012 paper in Neural networks. And yes, it was informed by reviewing lots of practical mystical literature, including yoga and many other traditions.  My theory here is NOT identical to that of Teilhard de Chardin, who suggested (like Verdansky) that our noosphere is simply the product of evolution on earth. But in practical terms, there are many similarities, and similarities as well to folks like Sheldrake. For example, de Chardin's book The Activation of Human Energy is very important to the praxis here. Those who just disappear into a cave and seek nothingness may indeed dissolve away into nothingness (as folks like Bannon and ISIS may do in a more active way), but that is not the more natural and sane goal of "mindfulness" which the Dalai Lama talks about. Our progress and survival is very much a function of the invisible spiritual connections we grow to the rest of humanity and to our local (earth? solar system?) noosphere in general. And, OK, it's not JUST connectedness, it is also what we contribute to those connections, as the word "mindfulness" BEGINS to suggest. The analogy to the internet is somewhat useful, but of course it is a much richer network than all of that.  Best of luck,     Paul  Вірусів немає. www.avast.com