Harvard PhD On Paranormal Case Studies | Prof. Edward Kelly PhD

[@tigerwas8309]

behold, dear friends, the real superheroes walking with us..

[@oliviergoethals4137]

Talks like this make me so grateful towards technology and the present accessibility of knowledge.

[@samrowbotham8914]

I have studied the NDE literature as I am interested in altered states of consciousness. The evidence suggests we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.

[@moesypittounikos]

Nice quote from Bill Hicks.

[@brenoharantes]

Do you study the teachings of non dualists like Eckhart Tolle for instance?

[@DrSRanjanMBBSAcupuncturist]

#OneMind #LarryDossey Ch. No. 13 Early Oneness

[@Jim-jx5ds]

I coined the word soubjective - pronounced sowbjective to incorporate into one set the qualities of objectivity and subjectivity, which of course is the case we find nature.

[@youtubecanal]

Thank you. When was listening this talk I remember about False Pregnancy (Pseudocyesis).

[@anduinxbym6633]

This was an interesting discussion. With regards to what Donald Hoffman was saying, I would be very interested in a predictive theory that exclusively favors idealism. If what he wants comes to fruition it will surely be a nail in the coffin for physicalism. The problem is, it's hard to imagine a predictive theory that will truly defeat materialism by itself. For example, if he created a model based on social media interactions that could better explain the world around us than the current paradigm, the result would not necessarily flow to idealism. I would wager that most materialists would jump to the idea that we are living in a simulation that is taking place in a material universe before going to idealism. That's why I think it is also important to argue on the grounds of philosophy and parsimony. They go hand and hand. The fact is, everything that science has observed is just as compatible with idealism as with physicalism, and Occam's Razor favors the idealist. So, there is already no logical reason to be a physicalist. From that starting position, anything that points out the failures of the current paradigm is icing on the cake. Extra points if those failures are easily accommodated by idealism. Sure, the materialist can always brand them as mysteries to be solved at a later date, but when enough "mysteries" have piled up, it looks really bad for the materialist and makes idealism seem far more attractive. It drives up interest in alternative views which will hopefully result in more money and support going to scientists who are willing to explore alternative views. We're all in this together and the snowball effect is our friend here.

[@room_threeothree]

Great point you have brought with the simulation hypothesis. Mathematical precision of idealism can look like a precise definition of simulated reality. And who then will have to solve the next hard problem which is now are we in simulated reality or base reality? Reverting back to mathematics will lead to more nested paradigms which then mathematics will have to solve by narrow the angle of precision, ad infinitum. Therefore Ocsam Razor will be evoked again. To add to the above if I may, I find Donald’s approach is still within confines of materialism, albeit upgraded model. Physicalism 2.0. And that is for one reason. Donald’s postulation begins with the assumption that mathematics are found in nature and are not created by mind. If mathematics are found in nature then perhaps mathematics is the universal language with which universal consciousness can prove itself and thus describes itself through its dissociative part (plugging Bernardo Kastrup’s analytics). But if mathematics are created by man, it reasonable to assume that Donald’s approach is just hyper materialism or reductive idealism where consciousness, in spite of being the fundamental layer, is something that can be described by materialism (in that case the mathematics which are the user interface).

[@lachupacabra3667]

Where can I read about hypnotic blisters in detail? I mean actual experiments, it’s so interesting.

[@neil_spirits2072]

39:26 Wonderful conversation btwn these professors about Physicalism. Prof.Donald D. Hoffman: "There are of course interpretations that even some of the founders gave that went beyond just physicalism but i would say that the point is if we want to have an impact on our scientific peers, we need to make our ideas precise that in ways make absolutely new predictions that can be tested otherwise as a scientist i would say great come back when you've got something to tell me" Prof.Edward F. Kelly : "Physicalism clearly predicts that when you're unconscious following general anesthesia and or cardiac arrest you can't have any experience and yet we have evidence that under these conditions some people do have experiences thats kind of confirmation of myers's framework and a contradiction of the conventional physicalism, its not a mathematically precise prediction but it is a an expectation"

[@Anannt_Urjaa]

13:45 Psychic Research - ESP, Pk Psychokinesis Evidence of postmortem survival 15:55 Placebo Effect, hypnotic blisters, 17:05 Hypnotic anesthesia, India 18:05 Maternal Impression Psychological Automatism, Secondary Centers of Consciousness DID

[@Anannt_Urjaa]

21:30 Bruce Greyson, DOPS upcoming Book, AFTER

[@SolaceEasy]

Well hello Dr Soul, I stopped by to pick up a reason.

[@SolaceEasy]

In reply to the discussion around the 40-minute mark: Scientists will not be the only arbiters of Truth in the matters you are exploring. They may not necessarily have the tools to fully comprehend what's going on in this new realm. Dr Don has good reasons to try to convince that group of people, and society at Large, however the exploration of this realm should not be dependent on whether or not scientists and the public at Large are able to understand the matter being studied.

[@SolaceEasy]

Science has flaws also. In the history of science quite a few powerful lines of study have been based on conjecture that was later proven true. There was no math or proof of these conjectures but they were taken as true and wonderful science was developed from them before finally mathematicians figured out how to prove them. Such can happen in this realm of study as well.

[@SolaceEasy]

At the 50 minute mark it appears Dr Don is grasping at the tattered remains of physicalism before he finally falls into acceptance of this new understanding of reality.

[@SolaceEasy]

And finally the humanist speaks and I have a compadre.

[@neilcreamer8207]

I'm familiar with Donald Hoffmann's work and appreciate it but I think he's mistaken in thinking that a good theory needs mathematics. What type of mathematics can you apply to something that's not quantitative but qualitative?

[@bridgetcampbell6629]

A fascinating discussion. During the conversation about mathematical models I kept waiting for the panelists to talk about the work of Vernon Neppe and Edward Close. While the math and physics are beyond me, there's a Jeff Mishlove interview with Dr. Neppe about the mathematical calculations for a property that lacks mass and energy but which serves an organizing and stabilizing function in nature. Neppe and Close call it "gimmel" and equate it with consciousness. Is this the kind of model that Donald Hoffman was referring to?

[@noahwhalen3398]

Why would you need a mathematically precise series of equations for a field still being explored?

[@brenoharantes]

Pietro Ubaldi in his The Great Synthesis made a bold and inspired attempt at describing the equations behind idealist monism

[@herrDrKarlSmithDadhD]

In regards to the debate at the end. I have strong sympathies towards all of the varying views expressed. It's a weird feeling, actually, but I think that a shift in framing might help accommodate them all. What Don is really saying is that if we want Idealism to be taken seriously then we have to tackle the Hard Problem of Physicality. Materialists have to overcome the Hard Problem of Consciousness and equivalently we have to overcome the Hard Problem of Physicality which is "Well look if I just start carefully cataloging what I and everyone else see out here in the physical world try to come up with the simplest explanation the boom I get science and all the wonderful things that come from it. Surely all that's proof of the physical world's validity and so you need to have that same validity or you're asking me to deny my lying eyes" Now, even though I used parallel wording its immediately obvious that Idealism is infinitely closer to solving the hard problem of physicalism because we can easily state what a solution would look like. It would look like an emergent set of rules that reproduced quantum mechanics and possibly general relativity. Though I think QM is probably enough. Not only that but we can imagine several ways in which such a solution could be plausibly derived. Don's implicit target, however, is not just the plausibility of Idealism, its the superfluousness of Physicalism. He wants the actual, in hand, solution to the Hard Problem of Physicalism. He says only then will we be taken seriously. I think the more nuanced way, is only then can we produce a living revolution the way Relativity and Quantum Mechanics did. Otherwise, we will have to settle for one funeral at a time revolution. Which of course is the norm. But, yes it would be great to see the revolution happen right before our eyes and not sometime after we are dead.

[@Jamesrwatsonx]

Consciousness is not a hard problem. Consciousness is simply the term we use when discussing awareness. The more aware something is-in both degree and abundance-the more conscious it becomes. We often think a rock isn’t conscious, as if it’s separate. But then you might ask, “If I can be conscious of it, isn’t it clearly part of consciousness? Is it not, then, a part of me?” It’s similar to love-everyone understands what we mean by “love.” Everything we love requires a certain commitment that aligns more with the idea that all is one. Yet, we complicate love, just as our egos complicate consciousness, which simply is. The “headset argument” isn’t particularly insightful, at least not the way Don uses it. The environment is the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS), and as we become more conscious, we merge with more of that environment. As we explore it, the “headset” changes, and eventually, so does the carrier of consciousness. Assuming we know anything beyond this only complicates matters-and that’s what we do: we complicate things. Start by erasing the line between information and matter. Begin where everything begins. Recognize that we are an organism born from a larger organism, all of which is one unified entity. We have the tools to explore this organism and merge with it, until we eventually take on a different form as we continue that merging, expanding, we complicate things.

[@citizizen]

Some arbitrary notes came to mind. 1) What would it mean if we add one time dimension to each thing we want to work with? What about a second or third time? 2) Our brains have reservoirs of intelligence. If you study, it chooses for you if something must be added or not.. There is calculus in the brain, or how to work with 'functions' (Frege like). Perhaps this might change the minds of certain people (if they want to learn how this works). 3) Our brains adapt to things. Some of its adaptivity might mean: getting used to stuff and adapting to stuff for the 'dreaming eye', and thus not for day consciousness-like behavior. I.e.. for a scientist this might mean: underutilized and for a philosopher: contradiction.. At some point that is.. Which, seems to be similar to dreaming. 4) some things can be causal because our nervous system can be trained. I'm not sure that this lies within the reservoir of the brain..

[@MichaelJones-ek3vx]

analytic philosophy logically sorts the reduction base to consciousness, it achieves greater simplicity (>parsimony). it creates a seamless structure not contradicted by empirical evidence.

[@ExTReMeLaHJ]

amen

[@anthonylawrence5842]

I think there is a further missing link in the nature of consciousness arguement and that is the microbiomes affect on consciousness. As an example the gut/brain relationship and the HPA Axis. How do we factor in and explain the influence of trillions of bacteria and thousands of strains on the brain and perception. We are a symbiotic ecosystem.

[@obliooberon3679]

Did yall know you can think without listening to the voice of your imagination pretending to be you ? So many of these phenomenal experiences do happen , if and when they do happen to you try telling your buddies there you experienced it . They will look at you like your a screwball , guaranteed!

[@margrietoregan828]

the more expertise you have the less cortical activity you need right so there are these cases 48:11 where you when you're you know new at some at some like sport or something like that 48:17 there's a lot of cortical activity while you're learning to do it as you get better and better and you become an expert uh you the cortical activity shuts down 48:24 it's it's something like the the putamen is more active but but the cortex is shut down i'm still puzzling over and i've 53:41 asked quite a number of mathematicians whether mathematics is discovered or is it invented 53:48 i really don't know the answer to that if indeed it is discovered then maybe we'll discover 53:55 math that relates to consciousness but if it's invented we're using 54:00 a language which we call mathematics to apply to the physical world 54:06 that we experience in order to make sense of it and math may have no um no say 54:13 in what happens at the level of consciousness so this is where i'm a little hesitant 54:19 about being optimistic that mathematics will 54:25 uh describe consciousness rigorously jeff yeah i just i'll just make a quick 54:32 comment here maybe we can return to it later in our conversation but this is where the humanist in the room 54:38 always has to put his hand up or her hand up and say look your your reasoning is circular 54:45 you're you you're insisting on the scientific method to essentially establish the scientific method you're 54:52 you're assuming that science is the only way to know the true or the real 54:57 and that may be the correct thing to say in today's world it certainly isn't my 55:03 university but i just seriously doubt that i i think science is a great way to know i agree that 56:00 there are more roots to knowledge than just experiment in theory but 56:06 when we engage in explanation and that's the interesting thing when we try to explain 56:11 like in the kabbalah or other forms of explanation then there's a question of 56:17 precision of explanation it's just are we using precise concepts are we trying to be as clear as possible 56:25 are we trying to say something where we could show how it could be wrong and 56:30 the only role of mathematics for me is it's precision so i'm not worried so much 56:36 about the metaphysical status of mathematics i'm more concerned am i if i'm going to offer explanations 56:43 am i going to try to be as clear as possible and make predictions that will show where i'm wrong 56:49 or am i going to try to hide and just come up with a dodge and a weave so that no one can actually show me wrong 56:56 it's more about my intention am i trying to put out an idea so that we can figure out where my idea 57:01 is wrong or am i trying to put out an idea so you can so i can just defend it against all 57:07 comers so that no one can ever prove me wrong if my intention is that then i'm not interested if i'm 57:12 if my intention is to put out an idea so precisely that you and i can figure out where i'm 57:17 wrong and i can make progress then i'm interested it just so happens that mathematics is a really good language for them 57:23 so i'm very interested in engaging with people who want to put out their ideas in a way where they can find out as quickly as 57:29 possible where they're wrong that's the role of mathematics and and it does turn out that 57:35 the mathematics as it's used in the sciences does make really strong predictions i'll give one 57:40 really really concrete case so it turns out that the mathematics of 57:46 special relativity and unitarity from quantum mechanics 57:52 together imply

[@-4147]

Great discussion. Thanks for posting this Bernardo. By the way Bernardo I hope you have not gone vegan, or perhaps its the background. Your face looks pale.

[@brenoharantes]

Veganism is a tool to confront physicalism, too. Have you had negative experiences with veganism or some vegans?

[@-4147]

@@brenoharantes No. I don't. I think vegans becomes unhealthy quickly and don't want that to happen to Bernardo. It seems Vegans are under the illusion that by turning vegan they save animal lives'. It is not true if they rely on industrial farming for plants. Probably the same number or more animals are killed in the farms. The difference is that they are small, mostly rodents and are killed when plants are harvested. So unless you're vegan and you absolutely grow everything yourself, you are not vegan is so far as saving the lives of animals.

[@brenoharantes]

@@-4147 what are animals in the animal industry fed? In the US, Europe and China, just to mention those examples, they're fed crops usually soy and corn. So, small animals are killed in those crops, as you explained, right? If we add the farmed animals that non vegans eat, that amounts to many more animal deaths than vegans, do you agree?

[@conscious_being]

Very few really care about physicalism or its metaphysical implications. Physicalism led to explosion in science and technology, which most people find extremely useful. As Donald Hoffman said, any metaphysical theory that intends to replace physicalism will never be taken seriously, and for good reasons, unless it can do one better than physicalism, in the realm of predicting the external reality, real or apparent. To put it less charitably, if we are all dissociated identities of the same cosmic mind, how does it really matter whether another dissociated identity acknowledges that or not? I don't see any Analytical Idealists going around trying to convince other living creatures besides humans, that they too are dissociated identities of one cosmic mind. If the acknowledgement or otherwise of other living creatures besides humans is not of significance, why is the acknowledgement of humans of that significant?

[@MeRetroGamer]

Well I'd love to make rabbits aknowledging idealism if I could... I think it's not a matter of significance, but a matter of just will and try. We try to make it understandable to other humans because we know it can be done, and we don't try to make it understandable to other species because we don't know if it is even possible. We don't even know at which level they're "dissociated" though. Also, we live in a society made by humans which is constantly modeling the world we live in, so yes, it matters.

[@conscious_being]

@@MeRetroGamer Matters to who or what, when all are just dissociated identities of the one cosmic mind, especially when there is no known way integrating the dissociated identities of other creatures?

[@MeRetroGamer]

​@@conscious_being Because it is knowledge, and I'll argue why it is knowledge and not just some dumb or crazy theory. 1 - It is made from logical and analytic reasoning (from which mathematics have been constructed) 2 - It is also made from introspection (or factual experiences), which is at least at the same level than phisical facts (all of them must finally relate to some kind of reality). I'd indeed go beyond and say that phisical facts are just interpretations of experiential facts. If you position yourself saying that all of this doesn't matter, you're also saying that knowledge doesn't matter. Good, let's then drop all philosophy, phisics and science and return to the caverns killing each other just for food and survival. With that being said, I think it isn't necessary to point to the fact that knowledge always comes with new paradigms, new ideas and new potentials to explore (which in my opinion is a really good thing).

[@conscious_being]

@@MeRetroGamer It is non-falsifiaable and hence has only aesthetic significance. I am questioning the intellectual integrity of those claiming to believe in analytical idealism. I don't see how it is logically consistent to be a solipsist or analytical idealist and expend time and energy trying to convince others (who don't exist for the former and who are just oneself for the latter) that they are right. When you are responding to me, are you responding to yourself? If your answer is no, you don't believe in analytical idealism and any further conversation is meaningless. If your answer is yes, feel free to carry on without me.

[@MeRetroGamer]

​@@conscious_being So you don't have inner conversations with yourself? Thinking is almost entirely about that, and furthermore you probably use language almost all the time when thinking, am I wrong? Are you stating that thinking is useless and meaningless? Analytic idealism is as much falsifiable as spacetime phisicalism. Indeed, idealism is mostly a framework, not a theory by itself, and from that framework we could get falsifiable theories. The ones that we can't get from a phisical spacetime framework by the way. So yes, it is (or can be) as scientific as phisicalism, and indeed it could open a new path where phisicalism is actually stuck.

[@BugRib]

Alrighty then, I'm out.