Originally Posted by Brian Rush

But there's a difference between saying, "Memory may have other components to it besides this brain function involving the hypothalamus and portions of the cortex," and saying "Memory doesn't involve the brain at all."

I agree; Sheldrake and Hancock for example admit that the brain is involved. It also goes beyond the brain, even during embodied life. It can exist without the brain, which may depend on whether the spirit is incarnate or not. To function in this dense realm, the soul needs the body and the brain, which is its control center and antenna. There are the akashic records too, which are the record that the universe keeps of everything that goes on. I am not an expert on this; a field worth further inquiry. Many spiritual readers access the akashic records. I am open to all these phenomena, even if to finally know them to be true and real myself, I need more evidence or experience than I presently have.

More-etheric realms are not separate from more-dense realms; that would be an inaccurate interpretation of what I am saying. Spirit is everywhere, always and equally present in this life continuum.

More by Sheldrake on the extended mind (more extended than the brain), science and spirituality, telepathy tests, etc.

http://youtu.be/mJckSxlX3_c

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is quite simple. For you, spirit communication, the afterlife, etc., is something you imagine or dream up; "first person," which means something in your own world.

Not exactly. The images themselves are imaginary. They may, however, have associations that are part of shared reality. (Another part of my theory of psi, which I haven't talked about so much here, is that it is propagated in association space rather than normal space-time.) The important thing is to make a proper distinction between the two, and avoid making the mistake of thinking "It is quite simple."

Because, no. It's not.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

[Shrug.] You and he are wrong. There have been.

So says the book sellers, I mean, "researchers".

Yes, and there lies the difference between them and psi. Psi is not consistent with the science, or anyway the psychology and biology, of the mid twentieth century, when the first parapsychology experiments were conducted. As you noted, the apparent discovery of the Martian canals spurred a lot of excitement and attempts to learn more about them, which eventually determined that they didn't exist. Psi research, on the other hand, spurred a small-scale but intense interest in debunking the results by any means necessary, valid or otherwise, against a general background of disinterest. The two examples are not comparable.

The motivation of the follow up is irrelevant as long as their techniques are properly controlled. Proper follow up on the canals debunked them, even for the initial enthusiasts. Proper follow up on psi also debunked it but many of the enthusiasts refused to accept those results, getting caught up in the New Age movement. That is the only difference between the two.

I have spent a good deal of time looking into the evidence here, Mike, and I find it convincing.

Reading the writings of the enthusiasts is not "looking into the evidence". You are just one of their customers.

It's true that the scientific community in general does not (at least not officially) agree with me.

Nice weasel words. There is no "official" agreement in any science. Consensus among experts is the best you can hope for. Unfortunately for you the consensus of the experts, psychologists, neuroscientists, and physicists is that you have bought the Brooklyn Bridge.

I believe I know why that is: unlike the Martian canals, psi cannot be accepted as real (absent an actual, workable, non-supernatural model) without so badly overturning things that the science enterprise can no longer be done at all.

Delusions of grandeur. Chemistry and physics accepted quantum mechanics, special and general relativity. Biology accepted neutral theory. Geology accepted plate tectonics. All of those were initially viewed as impossible when first discovered/proposed. The difference between them and your hobby horse is that further research confirmed their existence instead of perpetually remaining in the fringes of statistical noise.

There is no way this can be accepted. No way. And so there is no way that an unbiased assessment of the evidence on an official level will be possible, until and unless such a model is presented. Even then, it will be very controversial, but that's appropriate.

It just wouldn't be genuine woo if there wasn't an accusation of conspiracy on the part of "the establishment".

Really, the fact that the intellectual Powers That Be have rejected the evidence is the only argument that the skeptics have here, and it's not convincing for this reason.

Coming from the guy who just takes the word of the pseudo-scientists, this means absolutely nothing.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I am presenting a hypothesis to account for certain observations. While measuring the random firing of synapses to see if minor alteration to them can account for what we observe would be a logical follow-up

This why is one measured but not the other? Why not say measure the random firing of synapses to see if these measurements can account for psi measurements.

If you did you would see that doing this requires a means to measure both things. Have psi researchers supplied a working method to measure psi that will work in the hands of someone other than the researcher who supplied the method? Given that and a way to measure random firing of synapses, whatever this means exactly, and then a researcher could do as you suggest. But you have not provided any evidence that a way to measure psi has been developed. For example, you could provide a link for such a method. This is my point about an operational definition. An operational definition requires a means of measuring the thing being defined. Otherwise the thing cannot be differentiated from things that resemble it but are not it.

Big name scientists like Crookes looked into telepathy back when scientifically reasonable models involving communication using EM radiation could be formulated to explain the phenomenon. And they reported solid results that were much more convincing to them than anything modern researchers can obtain despite their far more advanced techniques. If these 19th century examples of telepathy were real then modern psi researchers would have long ago convinced all the skeptics because the skeptics would get the same results when they tried it. But modern researchers do NOT say that psi phenomenon are huge effects that are very easy to show. Therefore the 19th century scientists couldn't have validly detected psi with their methods. Just as the canals really were not actually there in 1877 and UFOs really were not validly detected in the 1940's.

Of course people soon learned that these early psi results were false because shortly after it was discovered that the researchers had been duped by their subjects, some of whom were professional mediums and magicians who made their livings using deception to create the appearance of magic. A few of these subjects did it just to prove how silly and gullible so-called men of science can be. Something like the Piltdown man.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Not exactly. The images themselves are imaginary. They may, however, have associations that are part of shared reality. (Another part of my theory of psi, which I haven't talked about so much here, is that it is propagated in association space rather than normal space-time.) The important thing is to make a proper distinction between the two, and avoid making the mistake of thinking "It is quite simple."

Because, no. It's not.

But if the images are NOT themselves imaginary, then we are back to quite simple.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

For example, in the spirit world, you meet your parents and friends on the other side, and this is not something you imagine while still alive or unconscious in a body, but after the body dies, and you really are communicating with real spirits who communicate with each other and their spirit world.

This is an example of oversimplifying. In fact, the only actual instances of this sort of "spirit communication" that we know about ARE something you imagine (that is, something experienced in the imaginary mode) while you are still alive. Everything else is supposition and speculation. Even known cases of NDE are all -- one hundred percent -- cases where the person was revived, and we have no way of determining when the experience reported occurred. That is, we have no way at all to say that it occurred while the brain was clinically dead, as opposed to before clinical death (my money's on that), or after revival (but that's a possibility, too). A living brain is always involved in the experience, at very least in remembering and reporting it. Does something like an NDE happen when the brain dies and ISN'T revived? If so, we'll never have a report of it.

Other times mediums communicate with the dead, and the spirits tell the tale.

And here is where the uncertainty involved in all psychic perception must be taken into account, especially when the medium is speaking from his/her own bias, or confirming the desires and biases of a client. We simply can't take this at face value, as we have no way of independently confirming it (except dying, of course, and that won't help the knowledge of the living).

The spirit is another being, like me.

You probably think that calling this into question is an example of materialistic bias. No, it's actually a bias in favor of statements that have any evidence behind them, which that one doesn't.

I had a friend who had recently passed give me a massage in bed, as far as I could tell in my half-awake state. I had the impression that this was something happening to me, not something I was creating.

May have been, but if you think that means it wasn't experienced in the imaginary mode, you don't understand the imaginary mode. Cross-reference ordinary understanding of the imagination with psi, and you get a definite possibility of it including elements of "something happening to me."

Although he was a good friend, I had forgotten, if I had even known, that he was a massage therapist. I had known him as an electronic and world musician who traveled in psychic and new age circles. His name was Tajalli or William Wichman.

I don't have too many such experiences, but I have voluminous reports and studies, including spiritual people who said my recently-deceased father was standing behind me, and that's enough to keep my mind open.

Fine, but keeping your mind open means exactly that. Don't make the mistake of thinking this kind of thing proves much.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But if the images are NOT themselves imaginary, then we are back to quite simple.

Once again: experience happens in four different modes. A more complete description of each is as follows.

Sensation: the experience of perception by means of the senses.

Imagination: experience that resembles sensation but clearly isn't, e.g. dreams.

Thought: rational cognition, normally about data acquired through sensation or imagination or both.

Emotion: feelings, the subjective perspective on affect.

Now, if the images are not imaginary -- that is, not experienced in the imaginary mode -- which of the other three are they?

I think you're still getting hung up on what you consider the implications of the word "imaginary." Again, for me that does NOT mean "unreal." It means nothing except "experienced in the imaginary mode," that is, it resembles sensation but clearly isn't.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This why is one measured but not the other? Why not say measure the random firing of synapses to see if these measurements can account for psi measurements.

If you did you would see that doing this requires a means to measure both things.

No, because that is only one thing, not two. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I model psi (all of psi) as consisting, in its effect on physical events (including those occurring in the brain), of alterations in the normal probability associated with indeterminate events. In the case of telepathy, the firing of synapses is the TARGET of psi, NOT its generator. I haven't tried to quantify this idea (other than as a mathematical exercise, which was fun but yielded nothing falsifiable) precisely because measuring psi potential independent of its effect is impossible at present. We can measure only the outcome, and only statistically if I'm right here.

Unless you want to accuse all modern psi researchers who have achieved positive results of deliberate fraud or having been deceived by their subjects (and you'd be on very shaky ground to make that accusation), instances of this sort of thing in the past have no relevance.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is an example of oversimplifying. In fact, the only actual instances of this sort of "spirit communication" that we know about ARE something you imagine (that is, something experienced in the imaginary mode) while you are still alive. Everything else is supposition and speculation. Even known cases of NDE are all -- one hundred percent -- cases where the person was revived, and we have no way of determining when the experience reported occurred. That is, we have no way at all to say that it occurred while the brain was clinically dead, as opposed to before clinical death (my money's on that), or after revival (but that's a possibility, too). A living brain is always involved in the experience, at very least in remembering and reporting it. Does something like an NDE happen when the brain dies and ISN'T revived? If so, we'll never have a report of it.

Sure we will, if the person who passed on, communicates it to a living person. My money is on after clinical death, and before revival. The point is not to make each other agree. The point is we have different worldviews. That's fine with me; it's up to you to come around to a better way of thinking, or not.

The Sheldrake video I just linked is discussing scientific investigations of this, as I write.

I'm sure you know about people who had died and observed objects in the operating room from out of the body that they could not have known within the body.

And here is where the uncertainty involved in all psychic perception must be taken into account, especially when the medium is speaking from his/her own bias, or confirming the desires and biases of a client. We simply can't take this at face value, as we have no way of independently confirming it (except dying, of course, and that won't help the knowledge of the living).

Unless the spirit communicates with more than one medium; then there is more than one person's perception.

You probably think that calling this into question is an example of materialistic bias. No, it's actually a bias in favor of statements that have any evidence behind them, which that one doesn't.

There probably is evidence; certainly there is for out of body experiences. Even if there is no scientific evidence, that merely shows the limits of science, and the need for other modes of exploring shared, universal reality, since the method of science itself precludes knowledge of these aspects of universal, shared reality.

May have been, but if you think that means it wasn't experienced in the imaginary mode, you don't understand the imaginary mode. Cross-reference ordinary understanding of the imagination with psi, and you get a definite possibility of it including elements of "something happening to me."

If I can't convince you it was real, beyond the imaginary mode; that's your worldview. I just gave an example that you asked for. Your explanation doesn't jive.

Fine, but keeping your mind open means exactly that. Don't make the mistake of thinking this kind of thing proves much.

My own experiences haven't proved much, but I put great stock on the voluminous reports. I don't interpret them away as you do, based on my pre-determined worldview. But my mind does remain open; that's the right attitude to have, although at this point I can't deny that I am rooting for spiritual interpretations, which jive with my own philosophy. I had been a materialist in youth, and I found myself going in the opposite direction in my late teens as a result of my spiritual experiences-- not experiences of ghosts and spirits, and yet what I did experience made me especially interested in such things.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Once again: experience happens in four different modes. A more complete description of each is as follows.

Sensation: the experience of perception by means of the senses.

Imagination: experience that resembles sensation but clearly isn't, e.g. dreams.

Thought: rational cognition, normally about data acquired through sensation or imagination or both.

Emotion: feelings, the subjective perspective on affect.

On what basis have you chosen or listed these four modes? Why should I agree that these are the four?

Jung said intuition, sensation, thinking and feeling. That's a standard model. It may be inadequate, but I don't think what you mention is better.

Now, if the images are not imaginary -- that is, not experienced in the imaginary mode -- which of the other three are they?

Experiences of the spiritual reality, that's what. That is not one of your four, apparently.

I think you're still getting hung up on what you consider the implications of the word "imaginary." Again, for me that does NOT mean "unreal." It means nothing except "experienced in the imaginary mode," that is, it resembles sensation but clearly isn't.

But like sensation, it has a real object; just not a sensed one.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sure we will, if the person who passed on, communicates it to a living person.

We can't trust that. There are too many things that can go wrong there. It's a form of psychic perception, and we know from experience how easy it is for that to be off.

My money is on after clinical death, and before revival. The point is not to make each other agree. The point is we have different worldviews. That's fine with me; it's up to you to come around to a better way of thinking, or not.

You're entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Much of what you're saying here is not factual. It's guesswork on your part, and not very likely to be true.

I'm sure you know about people who had died and observed objects in the operating room from out of the body that they could not have known within the body.

Yeah, and I also know about remote viewing experiments that didn't involve anyone dying at all. Why is the one any different from the other?

Unless the spirit communicates with more than one medium; then there is more than one person's perception.

Again, you have to factor psi into all of this. Psi does NOT imply life after death, or that a medium is literally communicating with the literal spirits of the dead. The above, if it includes verifiable information, is evidence of psychic perception, but not of anything beyond that.

There probably is evidence; certainly there is for out of body experiences.

Yes, but what of it? We don't need the model of a spirit leaving the body to explain OBE. All we need is a combination of psi, altered states of consciousness, and the imaginary mode of experience.

E
ven if there is no scientific evidence, that merely shows the limits of science, and the need for other modes of exploring shared, universal reality, since the method of science itself precludes knowledge of these aspects of universal, shared reality.

So . . . you want to believe this stuff, and if science can't confirm that it's real, that means there's a problem with science.

Got it. [rolleyes]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

On what basis have you chosen or listed these four modes? Why should I agree that these are the four?

Jung said intuition, sensation, thinking and feeling. That's a standard model. It may be inadequate, but I don't think what you mention is better.

Jung wasn't talking about the same things I am, even though there's some terminology overlap. He was talking about functions of the personality. I'm talking about modes of subjective experience.

As to why you should believe in them, well, of course you shouldn't just on my say-so, but consider your own subjective experiences. Is there anything that you have ever experienced that doesn't fit one of those descriptions, or a combination of them? If so, tell me about it. Maybe I'll need to revise my thinking.

Experiences of the spiritual reality, that's what. That is not one of your four, apparently.

It's all of them, actually. Modes of experience don't say anything about what, if anything, is being experienced in those modes.

But like sensation, it has a real object; just not a sensed one.

Oh, yes, sometimes. But that doesn't mean that the images themselves are simplistically real.

For example, suppose that someone living in Pompeii right before the volcanic eruption had a dream the night before that Vulcan was supremely pissed off and about to kill everyone. There's an association between that dream and what was about to happen, and it provided real information if interpreted correctly. But the correct interpretation isn't "We need to make a sacrifice to Vulcan," but rather "Vesuvius is about to blow sky-high and we'd better get out of town if we want to live!"

This sort of thing happens with psychic perception all the time.

Mikebert,

Your analogy of psi research being like the Martian canals is seeming more and more apt. Here we are trying to get Brian to show us an actual canal and instead he spends his time telling Eric all about the fantastical Martian cities and civilizations. He's got intricate descriptions of their governments, culture and technology! Just no canals.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Jung wasn't talking about the same things I am, even though there's some terminology overlap. He was talking about functions of the personality. I'm talking about modes of subjective experience.

I doubt there is such a thing. There is no subjective without objective.

As to why you should believe in them, well, of course you shouldn't just on my say-so, but consider your own subjective experiences. Is there anything that you have ever experienced that doesn't fit one of those descriptions, or a combination of them? If so, tell me about it. Maybe I'll need to revise my thinking.

I experienced that the universe is love, and that my love connects with it, and is it. This probably won't convince you; you'll try to fit it with one of your modes. But I don't see it that way; it doesn't fit.

But why should I be interested in a model based only on my own personal experience? I am connected to all other beings; what they say is significant. You don't need to revise your thinking based on my experience; there are millions of other people you could ask.

It's all of them, actually. Modes of experience don't say anything about what, if anything, is being experienced in those modes.

But what is being experienced, is the point. If I experience something, then that "something" is part of my experience. I am connecting with something beyond my personal being. As Sheldrake explains it, with attention and intention, I as consciousness am connecting with the object.

Our experience is the only method we have of knowing anything. And there is no reality that is not affected by our observation of it; our observation makes it real. The disconnect between subject and object, is what is false.

Consciousness is everything.

Oh, yes, sometimes. But that doesn't mean that the images themselves are simplistically real.

For example, suppose that someone living in Pompeii right before the volcanic eruption had a dream the night before that Vulcan was supremely pissed off and about to kill everyone. There's an association between that dream and what was about to happen, and it provided real information if interpreted correctly. But the correct interpretation isn't "We need to make a sacrifice to Vulcan," but rather "Vesuvius is about to blow sky-high and we'd better get out of town if we want to live!"

This sort of thing happens with psychic perception all the time.

Yes, people have premonitions that Vesuvius is about to blow. No Vulcan involved. My friend Gloria Wilcox had an experience of the coming Loma Prieta Earthquake. She took down the pictures from her wall the day before. That day the dog next door to me was barking all day too; far beyond anything usual. The dog knew it was coming; that is a common occurance. The dolphins swam out into the ocean to avoid the 2004 sunami. Creatures ran away from the shore. They did this long before the waves were anywhere near. People and animals can sense what is happening in nature beyond any rational basis. I don't know if this is purely psychic; probably not-- sensitive people and creatures can pick up on the natural vibrations of an impending earth disaster.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We can't trust that. There are too many things that can go wrong there. It's a form of psychic perception, and we know from experience how easy it is for that to be off.

It may be inaccurate. It is evidence of a kind, by no means proof.

You're entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Much of what you're saying here is not factual. It's guesswork on your part, and not very likely to be true.

I'm entitled to my worldview, which makes perfect sense to me.

Yeah, and I also know about remote viewing experiments that didn't involve anyone dying at all. Why is the one any different from the other?

I don't get that question. The dead person was perceiving the room. Remote viewers can perceive such a room too. The dead person was not practicing remote viewing. That is a specific method with specific protocols.

Again, you have to factor psi into all of this. Psi does NOT imply life after death, or that a medium is literally communicating with the literal spirits of the dead. The above, if it includes verifiable information, is evidence of psychic perception, but not of anything beyond that.

I am open to "anything beyond that."

Psi as you explain it, is only a model to satisfy skeptics. It is not needed. The experiments only show knowledge transferred without use of the senses. To me, it proves the soul, as you described in your other post what Rhine believed and said I agree. That is correct.

Yes, but what of it? We don't need the model of a spirit leaving the body to explain OBE. All we need is a combination of psi, altered states of consciousness, and the imaginary mode of experience.

In your worldview, that works. In mine, it doesn't. I am a spiritualist.

So . . . you want to believe this stuff, and if science can't confirm that it's real, that means there's a problem with science.

Got it. [rolleyes]

Absolutely! You can't rely on science in order to know all of what is real; it is just one of the 4 modes of knowledge. You admit this, and yet keep coming back to demanding for scientific evidence.

And when science does confirm "this stuff," I choose not to explain it away in terms of a physicalist worldview.

I am open toward those things as real phenomena; you are not. That's all this is about. You are entitled to your opinion as far as I am concerned. I am not going to convince you to adopt mine.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I doubt there is such a thing. There is no subjective without objective.

That doesn't mean there is no such thing. Subjective experience happens. I'm saying it happens in those four modes: we sense, we imagine, we think, and we feel. Can you think of any others?

I experienced that the universe is love, and that my love connects with it, and is it. This probably won't convince you; you'll try to fit it with one of your modes. But I don't see it that way; it doesn't fit.

Emotion, of course.

But why should I be interested in a model based only on my own personal experience?

It's not a model of anything. It's a description OF your (and everyone's) personal experience. Actually, I first developed this because of a need to think about the imaginary mode in the context of magical practice that wasn't dismissive.

You don't need to revise your thinking based on my experience; there are millions of other people you could ask.

I don't need to review my thinking based on what they say, either, unless what they say gives me a reason to do so.

But what is being experienced, is the point. If I experience something, then that "something" is part of my experience. I am connecting with something beyond my personal being.

Yes, but "what is being experienced" is exactly the point. And yes, you are connected with "something" beyond your personal being -- but what, exactly? We can't take experiences in the imaginary mode at face value, even when they contain psychic perception.

The disconnect between subject and object

Has not been stated by anyone here at all. Straw man.

Consciousness is everything.

And that which is everything is nothing in particular.

Yes, people have premonitions that Vesuvius is about to blow. No Vulcan involved.

You're missing the point, Eric. The way that the hypothetical person experienced his/her premonition about Vesuvius was through a dream about Vulcan. The way that some mediums experience their psychic perception of verifiable facts is in the form of a conversation with the spirit of a dead person. If the premonition in the dream being true doesn't mean there was a literal Vulcan involved, doesn't that also mean that the accuracy of a medium's information doesn't mean there was a literal spirit involved? Same principle.

Interesting interview of a famous modern spiritualist by a famous modern materialist.



Nice, polite dialogue; something for us to learn from?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm entitled to my worldview, which makes perfect sense to me.

And I'm entitled to point out that, however much sense it makes to you, it doesn't necessarily follow from the things you're taking as evidence.

I don't get that question. The dead person was perceiving the room. Remote viewers can perceive such a room too. The dead person was not practicing remote viewing. That is a specific method with specific protocols.

No, "remote viewing" refers simply to the visual perception of physical facts that are not available to the senses. (I would describe it as an experience in the imaginary mode that provides verifiable information about something.) The protocols apply to remote viewing experiments and are mostly intended to exclude the possibility of obtaining the information in any ordinary way. Those are good protocols for the experiments, but have nothing to do with remote viewing as such.

The point here is that you don't have to be dead to do this sort of thing, so we have no evidence here of post-mortem survival. We have evidence, rather, of a remote-viewing phenomenon that's part of the NDE. All the same uncertainty about the NDE itself also applies here.

Psi as you explain it, is only a model to satisfy skeptics.

Actually, no, it's a model to satisfy me.

In your worldview, that works. In mine, it doesn't. I am a spiritualist.

"Works" implies that it achieves a purpose. So what you said is true, but only because our purposes differ here. Mine is to understand the phenomenon. Yours is to be reinforced in beliefs that you want to keep. You are quite correct that it doesn't "work" for that purpose. But the fact remains that if there is an alternative explanation for the phenomenon that doesn't support your beliefs, then the phenomenon provides no evidence for your beliefs.

Your claim that "spiritual" phenomena of the sort you mean exist, I can't disprove. But your claim, or implied claim, that that belief is supported by psi phenomena, I can. That is wrong. It is not.

Absolutely! You can't rely on science in order to know all of what is real; it is just one of the 4 modes of knowledge. You admit this, and yet keep coming back to demanding for scientific evidence.

Excuse me, but you don't seem to have understood what I meant by those four modes of knowledge. There aren't four modes of knowing the same thing, nor are there four modes of answering the same questions. Each of the modes of knowledge I referred to (science, art, morality, and spirituality), plus the fifth one I forgot, philosophy, answers different questions. Questions of fact about the observable world are the domain of science -- and only of science. Science is incomplete because it is incompetent to answer questions of meaning (we need art for that), of value (morality), or of identity and relation to the cosmos (spirituality), and because it can't answer questions about the assumptions it is based on (philosophy).

But you aren't talking about any of those things here, Eric. You're asking questions of fact about the observable world, and those are scientific questions. It's not appropriate to reject science in its own domain.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That doesn't mean there is no such thing. Subjective experience happens. I'm saying it happens in those four modes: we sense, we imagine, we think, and we feel. Can you think of any others?

We have direct contact with others, soul to soul, heart to heart. If we connect with the universe in cosmic consciousness, that is subjective too, but it is not restricted to those 4 modes you mention. If we know ourselves, we are looking within our awareness. That is not imagination or any of the other modes. Direct awareness does not fit those modes.

Intuition in the Jungian sense, included awareness of connections between the unseen; larger views of things, archetypes like he described; knowledge of principles and general ideas, eternal forms, etc. It also included imagining possibilities, as well as the preference for designing things rather than building them.

Awareness of synchronicities, premonitions, connections with past traditions in rituals and observances; calling these "imagination" is to say we make them up.

Since there is no such thing as subjective without objective, a subjective experience that refers to nothing beyond the subject, is absurd. Our subjective experience is always connected to others.

Emotion, of course.

Nope.

It's not a model of anything. It's a description OF your (and everyone's) personal experience. Actually, I first developed this because of a need to think about the imaginary mode in the context of magical practice that wasn't dismissive.

Model, description; in any case such a description or model needs to be general, not based only on myself.

Yes, but "what is being experienced" is exactly the point. And yes, you are connected with "something" beyond your personal being -- but what, exactly? We can't take experiences in the imaginary mode at face value, even when they contain psychic perception.

They aren't in the imaginary mode; that word is inadequate. Imagination implies it is in my world only. They are in the spiritual mode. They are direct experiences, as worthy of being taken at face value as any sensory experience. They are not in my world only.

You're missing the point, Eric. The way that the hypothetical person experienced his/her premonition about Vesuvius was through a dream about Vulcan. The way that some mediums experience their psychic perception of verifiable facts is in the form of a conversation with the spirit of a dead person. If the premonition in the dream being true doesn't mean there was a literal Vulcan involved, doesn't that also mean that the accuracy of a medium's information doesn't mean there was a literal spirit involved? Same principle.

Well, if you choose to look upon the spirit as a symbol or a metaphor, like Vulcan for a volcanic eruption, that would work, but if communicating with a perceived spirit is like the actual perception of nature's vibrations on the verge of blowing up or quaking, then it doesn't.

If I communicate with a spirit, that will be me communicating with another being like myself. If I am having a metaphor in a dream to interpret, I will know that, and gain wisdom from it. I see no reason to confuse these things.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And I'm entitled to point out that, however much sense it makes to you, it doesn't necessarily follow from the things you're taking as evidence.

Yes, you are entitled to make your case in that regard.

No, "remote viewing" refers simply to the visual perception of physical facts that are not available to the senses. (I would describe it as an experience in the imaginary mode that provides verifiable information about something.) The protocols apply to remote viewing experiments and are mostly intended to exclude the possibility of obtaining the information in any ordinary way. Those are good protocols for the experiments, but have nothing to do with remote viewing as such.

The point here is that you don't have to be dead to do this sort of thing, so we have no evidence here of post-mortem survival. We have evidence, rather, of a remote-viewing phenomenon that's part of the NDE. All the same uncertainty about the NDE itself also applies here.

The problem is that such remote viewing (as distinct from psychic impressions) is very rare for most people, and usually doesn't occur except among practitioners of remote viewing experiments, or among people who are having NDEs.

Actually, no, it's a model to satisfy me.

Well, OK. It seemed above you were saying that you want it so skeptics will more-easily accept the evidence for psi. It doesn't satisfy me though.

"Works" implies that it achieves a purpose. So what you said is true, but only because our purposes differ here. Mine is to understand the phenomenon. Yours is to be reinforced in beliefs that you want to keep.

No, vice versa. As the video said, to deny idealism now is just a faith-based opinion
http://youtu.be/4C5pq7W5yRM?t=9m20s

You are quite correct that it doesn't "work" for that purpose. But the fact remains that if there is an alternative explanation for the phenomenon that doesn't support your beliefs, then the phenomenon provides no evidence for your beliefs.

Your claim that "spiritual" phenomena of the sort you mean exist, I can't disprove. But your claim, or implied claim, that that belief is supported by psi phenomena, I can. That is wrong. It is not.

Not true at all; it just means you have proposed an alternative explanation. That doesn't mean that it is proven. In fact, the evidence proves a spiritual explanation. Other explanations don't have any evidence to support them.

Excuse me, but you don't seem to have understood what I meant by those four modes of knowledge. There aren't four modes of knowing the same thing, nor are there four modes of answering the same questions. Each of the modes of knowledge I referred to (science, art, morality, and spirituality), plus the fifth one I forgot, philosophy, answers different questions

As I explained, "morality" is part of that fifth one. So there are four.

. Questions of fact about the observable world are the domain of science -- and only of science. Science is incomplete because it is incompetent to answer questions of meaning (we need art for that), of value (morality), or of identity and relation to the cosmos (spirituality), and because it can't answer questions about the assumptions it is based on (philosophy).

But you aren't talking about any of those things here, Eric. You're asking questions of fact about the observable world, and those are scientific questions. It's not appropriate to reject science in its own domain.

And as I have explained, the "observable world" as you have defined it, means in turn what is observable by science, within its methods. That does not mean that is it not observable by other methods. Observation in this sense, just means awareness-of. Observation by science means: through hypothesis, definition, testing, measurement, verification using the senses and its tools. The other modes, are also observations in this sense of awareness-of; just using other protocols. Meaning, values, feelings, relations to the universe, assumptions, spiritual worlds and spirits, intuitions, psychic experiences, eternal truths, archetypes; these are all observable realities, even though they are not questions of fact that can be verified by objective methods. You can't demand that the senses be used to know what is supersensible.

To say science is the only method of knowing, is false. There are three other modes; and they are modes of knowing.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We have direct contact with others, soul to soul, heart to heart. If we connect with the universe in cosmic consciousness, that is subjective too, but it is not restricted to those 4 modes you mention. If we know ourselves, we are looking within our awareness. That is not imagination or any of the other modes. Direct awareness does not fit those modes.

If you look carefully at any experience of so-called "direct awareness," you'll find that it's always experienced in one (or actually, in several) of the modes I mentioned. For example, direct telepathic connection is mostly emotional. Cosmic consciousness also has a large emotional component but also manifests in thought and imagination.

Intuition in the Jungian sense,

Has nothing to do with this, as I said. He was talking about something totally different than I am here, and nothing I said conflicts in any way with anything he said about the four functions, and vice-versa.

Awareness of synchronicities, premonitions, connections with past traditions in rituals and observances; calling these "imagination" is to say we make them up.

No, no, no, it does NOT, for the ten zillionth time. Fercriminey's sake, Eric, read the following and friggin' MEMORIZE IT, willya?

Imaginary does not mean unreal.
Imaginary does not mean unreal.
Imaginary does not mean unreal.
Imaginary does not mean unreal.
Imaginary does not mean unreal.

Got that?

Since there is no such thing as subjective without objective, a subjective experience that refers to nothing beyond the subject, is absurd.

Good thing I haven't talked about any such thing, then, isn't it?

Nope.

Love isn't an emotion? Do tell. What is it, then?

Imagination implies it is in my world only.

No, no, no, it does NOT. For the ten zillionth and ONE time. Jeez . . .

They are direct experiences, as worthy of being taken at face value as any sensory experience.

There is no reason to believe that. And enormous reason not to.

Well, if you choose to look upon the spirit as a symbol or a metaphor, like Vulcan for a volcanic eruption, that would work, but if communicating with a perceived spirit is like the actual perception of nature's vibrations on the verge of blowing up or quaking, then it doesn't.

Uh, well, the first is what I meant. Communicating with the spirit is like dreaming of Vulcan. Perceiving verifiable facts, e.g. where the old man buried the key to the strong box in the basement, is like the perception that Vesuvius is about to blow.

If I communicate with a spirit, that will be me communicating with another being like myself.

If that's how you're defining it, then I see no evidence that communicating with a spirit ever happens. If instead you're talking about the experience that many people (including myself) have had, that is sometimes interpreted as "communicating with a spirit," then we do know that it happens, but we DON'T know that it's "communicating with another being like yourself." That's an assumption. We have no evidence for it, and certainly the experience itself provides none, and neither does any verifiable information picked up in the context of it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If you look carefully at any experience of so-called "direct awareness," you'll find that it's always experienced in one (or actually, in several) of the modes I mentioned. For example, direct telepathic connection is mostly emotional. Cosmic consciousness also has a large emotional component but also manifests in thought and imagination.

I don't find that.

Has nothing to do with this, as I said. He was talking about something totally different than I am here, and nothing I said conflicts in any way with anything he said about the four functions, and vice-versa.

OK.

No, no, no, it does NOT, for the ten zillionth time. Fercriminey's sake, Eric, read the following and friggin' MEMORIZE IT, willya?

Imaginary does not mean unreal.
Imaginary does not mean unreal.
Imaginary does not mean unreal.
Imaginary does not mean unreal.
Imaginary does not mean unreal.

Got that?

Yes; that means it is observation of a reality.

Love isn't an emotion? Do tell. What is it, then?

What I described included a lot more than just love.

No, no, no, it does NOT. For the ten zillionth and ONE time. Jeez . . .

If not, then it means you have contacted others.

There is no reason to believe that. And enormous reason not to.

If such "imaginary" experiences are "real," then there's every reason to believe that.

Uh, well, the first is what I meant. Communicating with the spirit is like dreaming of Vulcan. Perceiving verifiable facts, e.g. where the old man buried the key to the strong box in the basement, is like the perception that Vesuvius is about to blow.

Communicating with a spirit is like the perception that Vesuvius is about to blow. As I said in the first post in this chain, I am saying spirits are not metaphors or symbols, and you are. Who is right? I dunno. I know that this is where we differ.

If that's how you're defining it, then I see no evidence that communicating with a spirit ever happens. If instead you're talking about the experience that many people (including myself) have had, that is sometimes interpreted as "communicating with a spirit," then we do know that it happens, but we DON'T know that it's "communicating with another being like yourself." That's an assumption. We have no evidence for it, and certainly the experience itself provides none, and neither does any verifiable information picked up in the context of it.

It seems it's as good an assumption as that I am posting here and a real person named Brian is replying to me, or that when I go to my spiritual group tomorrow, I will meet and talk with real people there. There is abundant evidence, but it's probably true that science can provide no such evidence of spiritual phenomena that cannot be interpreted as physical or imagination. To some extent it is up to each individual to interpret these findings. Science is not fully equipped to study such things beyond all doubt. To me, that just shows that science is limited. I choose to be open-minded about such things. I am a spiritualist.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The problem is that such remote viewing (as distinct from psychic impressions) is very rare for most people, and usually doesn't occur except among practitioners of remote viewing experiments, or among people who are having NDEs.

No, that's not true. And it's not "distinct from psychic impressions." Eric, no offense, but you need more actual experience DOING this stuff if you're going to properly understand it.

No, vice versa. As the video said, to deny idealism now is just a faith-based opinion
http://youtu.be/4C5pq7W5yRM?t=9m20s

First, we're not talking about "idealism." We're talking about your belief in ghosties, which is perfectly consistent with realism, and neither implies, nor is implied by, idealism in any way.

Second, I was referring to your motivations, not to the state of reality. Your desire here is to believe that the things you're talking about are evidenced by psi phenomena, and that's why my model doesn't "work" for you.

Not true at all; it just means you have proposed an alternative explanation. That doesn't mean that it is proven. In fact, the evidence proves a spiritual explanation. Other explanations have no evidence to support them.

Doesn't mean what is proven?

The only way that psi phenomena would provide evidence for life after death (for example) is if we could not have the one without the other, so that we either had to reject both, or accept both. If we have another explanation for psi phenomena that doesn't require life after death, then we can't say that psi phenomena are evidence of life after death. This is quite straightforward, Eric, and you have no excuse for not understanding it, frankly.

You need to be clear what you mean by a "spiritual explanation." Sometimes you seem to be talking about spirituality when you say that, and at other times about a belief in ghosties. These are not the same thing, even though depending on context you can slap the same tag on them. We have no reason to believe in ghosties.

And as I have explained, the "observable world" as you have defined it, means in turn what is observable by science, within its methods. That does not mean that is it not observable by other methods.

I'm not talking about "things." I'm talking about questions. Many of the questions appropriate to morality, for example, reference the same things that science deals with, but not the same sort of questions about those things. For example, consider a pistol. A moral question about that pistol is, "Should I shoot my wife with it?" A scientific question is "What is the chemical composition of the propellant in the cartridges?" Both these questions are about the same thing, but they are not the same question or even the same type of question.

When you are asking questions of FACT -- not values, not meaning, but only FACT -- about observable phenomena, then you should use the scientific method. If you use any other method, you will be approaching the question improperly, and coming to unjustified conclusions.

spiritual worlds and spirits, intuitions, psychic experiences, eternal truths, archetypes; these are all observable realities

No, actually none of them is an observable phenomenon. Some of them can be experienced subjectively; they have meaning in the first person but not in the third. Two of them (eternal truths and archetypes) can only be thought about -- the subjective experience of them is purely cognitive, and there is no objective experience of them at all. (Of course, the same is true of scientific theories, which also can only be thought about, but scientific theories make reference to and are supported by observation of phenomena. Eternal truths and archetypes don't. They are part of spirituality, mostly, and also of art, and are not answering questions of fact but rather questions of meaning.)

Psychic phenomena are observable, but psychic experiences aren't. And psychic phenomena are in the domain of science.

To say science is the only method of knowing, is false.

I didn't say it was. I said it was the only valid method of answering questions of fact about observable phenomena. Those aren't the only important questions. But when it comes to those question, science is the tool to use.

Eric, let me see if I can explain about the imaginary mode and the experiences therein this way. You are presenting two alternative possibilities:

1) The things we perceive in psychic perception literally exist. Thus, when we experience the presence of a God or Goddess, we are literally communicating with that deity, who is a literal, actual person distinct from ourselves. When we seem to be communicating with the departed spirit of Grandpa, that's literally what we're doing.

2) The things we perceive in psychic perception are all in our heads and refer to nothing real.

But these are not the only two possibilities. Here's a third, which I believe to be the case.

3) The things we perceive in psychic perceptions are often symbols, ways that our unconscious minds express information coming to us by psychic means. We connect with something real in these experiences, something outside ourselves, but the actual images and ideas that arise in our mind often have a metaphorical rather than a literal connection with that reality.