Lucid Dreaming and OBE Discussion Board

Hi!  I participated in a chat on Facebook about whether or not we really exist and we have been discussing certain possibilities there.  Then it occurred to me to mention Deacon and his theory about how mind could have emerged from matter.  Here is what I posted:

"...there is a theory about consciousness that surmises it to be the result of what is not there rather than what is there. Since we cannot pinpoint the "I" in the brain, it could be that we are actually nothing...and thus, we, as the self, don't really exist. The theory emphasises the fact that, what is seen to not be there in a system is just as important as what is actually there because both influence each other. This view, by Terrence W Deacon, was published in Newscientist and I quote: "This suggestion is not intended as an invitation to mysticism, rather it is a way of pointing to the importance of what the field of statistical mechanics calls 'constraint': the degrees of freedom not realised in a dynamical process." - He names a few examples and alludes to the possibility that Zeno's paradox, or something like it, might be applicable in the phenomenon of consciousness: swift Achilles can never overtake the tortoise in a race, or even reach the finishing line, because he must traverse an infinite number of fractions of that distance. Another way of looking at it is that, if there is always the half of something, then we can never reach someone and touch another person...and yet, it happens (or seems to happen). The "paradox of the mind will only dissolve when we learn how nature operates with the physical analogues of zero - the functions, meanings and experiences by which something virtual may become actual". A quick example to post here on how something absent is just as important as something present: a search team looks for a child lost in a forest...though 50 people may join in, only one will find the child, but without the other 49, it is unlikely the child would have been found. - I think Deacon is onto something..."

Claudio, founder of the group, had some opposing views as he believes in a non-physical realm or spirit world which is really the source of all being.  I go on to further explain Deacon's theories to make sure there are no misunderstandings:

"To Claudio's first post: but that's just it, Claudio. Intrinsically, we could be the nothingness, the "mere" analogues of zero which are equally as important as variables that will also have their influence in nature. My comment, according to the theory, was a consequence of Yessin's question and Runi's reply...like the ripple effect. After all, without the universe, there is no you. Now, about Zeno's paradox, sure you can cover the distance - in fact you don't even need to imagine that you are covering half of double the distance - it happens anyway. To Claudio's second post: I never said the 49 people were not absent. I think you missed the point there entirely. What is absent is the 49 people's participation in finding the child. Sure, they were searching, but they never found the child (this is where the absence is). However, the fact that they were searching might make all the difference because it makes it more likely that the child will be found by one person. In Deacon's theory, the potentials that could have been but never manifested are equally as important in influencing the system of things that are already present. There are far more examples and he goes into evolution and how it may apply to the phenomenon of consciousness but you need to give the book a go and be open-minded. There's a lot to learn still about how nature deals with and applies the zeros. When you think something is unimportant or irrelevant, it still plays a role somehow (even if it applies in making you think that it is unimportant)."

Tell me what you think about Deacon's theory!

I'll have to read some more of his material,but it looks interesting.What you wrote reminds me alot of Scott Tyson's 'Unobservable Universe' theory,you may like it too SL.He divides reality into two finite modes that interact.One is the phenomenal world of observation which he calls the "observerse." This is what science measures and what constitutes our conscious perceptions.

The other hemiverse is the "Voidverse" ,which represents the potential energy of the universe.This hemiverse is not observable and can be measured only indirectly.He believes that so called 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are really our indirect measurements of the universe's potential energy.He believes this is what the 'Sum over histories' approach to the double slit experiment represents.The paths not taken, but that interfere none the less,represent the unmeasured potential states of matter in the 'observerse'. This is just like your 49 people search for the lost child I think.....

Matter is the determined states of the universe's kinetic energy, BUT, mass is a property of the void NOT matter ! This is because he redefines mass as the curvature of space. So called 'empty' space is really our frame of reference dependent perception of the undetermined states of the universe.(Undetermined states make motion possible,his solution to Zeno's motion paradox)The curvature of 'space' ,as a result of the transfer and conversion of the void's potential energy into an observable-determinate state,makes the void's property of mass detectable.A theory of gravity and acceleration falls out of this because ,since the universe is finite in his model,energy is conserved when potential energy is transferred and the void is reduced. He believes this is the origin of Einstien's theory.

I emalied him to ask if he considers mind to be a property of the voidverse,the observerse,or some combination.He answered to the third option.Our objects of perception can be given a relative location,but part of the perciever remains unobservable.

http://www.amazon.com/Unobservable-Univ ... 0983243808

Hmmm...that's one possible explanation about dark matter.  I like the voidverse idea and the curvature of space to explain the paradox.  Perhaps everything spirals in and spirals out in a fractal reality.

By the way, what do you think about us being a creative void, or even a "white canvas" so to speak, in which many ideas can be painted?  And what if this void is somewhat self-aware?  It would then make sense that our intrinsic awareness remains after bodily death (because the body is only a condensed idea after all) and perhaps rebirth or other physical manifestations are possible.

Yes, I am implying that in one moment we are here as humans and then we die and the next we are little dragons learning to spew fire in another world.  I think the fact that our minds are intrinsically empty allows room for us to be and experience anything whatsoever.

So, if you think you are a healthy person with a good soul...think again.  Next time you could be evil because your new upbringing led you to new conclusions and different ideas.  You may even have a brain in another life which is chemically imbalanced and your experience will be quite different from the one you have now.

Where do I base my theory?  Well, the world looked quite different when I was a child...

Yeah,it could be like that.Awareness-consciousness could be a fundamental,core aspect of reality.I've had very similar thoughts like yours before.And if this "rigpa" or "kunzhi namshe" becomes entangled with some other form,evil or otherwise,then the idea of Karma does seem rational to me-that is if we really are indeed interconnected and finite.Buddhism,and especially "The Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep" have influenced outlooks like this with me before too.

(I still find some parts,like the "realm of hungry ghosts" and such, to be alot like religious mythology-not to be taken seriously.)

Yeah,we could be like a kind of 'field' ,which is a similar way of thinking.

I've been reading Johnjoe Mcfadden's papers about his 'CEMI Field Theory' lately,it's pretty compelling stuff IMO:

http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/qe/cemi.htm

could be like that.Awareness-consciousness

Summerland, you are incredibly articulate and lucid in your thinking.
I'm sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this.

"I" personally, have a few set rules in the construction of my personal perspectives, as dose our friend, Terrence W Deacon. I spent a great deal of time, exploring the writings and works of others. One of the most profound things I found, for myself and after the NDE. Was that there is no beginning or end to existence. There was never a time when it was, or was-not. It blossoms into being, instantly, at no point, neither in space or time, but in the flow of one's thought's, at the point where you believe it to be so.

To my way of thinking now, and in a grandiose sort of way "I" am all there is, there is nothing that exists, until I imagine it to be so. Then I coalesce with matter, as is thought of these days, into the external experience of the awakening life. The goal of experience in my view, is to never arrive at a vision of one's own completion. Constant to no ending.

A personal set-rule I practice, on my own, is the disillusion, of beliefs in time. Without it, "time", there is no linear social synchronization. i.e. the hours of my day do not become the hours of your day, so to speak. One must then center themselves within one's own natural rhythms. When that happens, then I find a true connection of one being to another.
I feel deeply, that thoughts and feelings exist as separate entities from the brain, and that, the  "I", that I know, exists as a separate entity, from a mutually created, physical reality. i.e. I create the physical experience of my personal body presents, within a mutually created, also universe.

Connection of one being to another, occurs when the matters of thought coalesce.
I know all this sounds pretty arrogant, but I believe its true of everyone's own entity as well.

Your kind of a tough customer Summerland.

Be well

It certainly seems that the "I" is its own entity apart from the brain.  Being aware and thinking the phrase "I think therefore I am" is indeed quite profound.  Perhaps the spirit does exist and there is an afterlife.  I love to discuss all possibilities while reminding myself that there is only one thing I am sure of: my ignorance.

I am pretty much an agnostic and for this reason tend to remind people of other possibilities - especially when they appear to be clinging too much to one view only.

I also get the impression that when my physical body ceases to function, if I continue to exist, I won't be the same.  Then there are other factors that lead me to take the possibility of death being the cessation of "I" quite seriously.  The universe could bring our conscious awareness back in a different form and with no recollection of this life, or, we could simply cease to be.  Whichever way it is, we won't be able to unravel the mystery of life and death.  Also, if there is a n intermediate state of being after death and we happen to realise that there is no death - we may forget that when we are reborn.  We may never know and the possible reason being that we may not be able to hold on to a knowing.