First evidence for higher state of consciousness found

originally posted by: TrueBrit
There are QM principles which can be applied as well. However, those principles, like Newtonian concepts feature repeatable experiments as their foundation as well, for example, the double slit experiment, which has entirely repeatable results... unlike, say for instance, any experiment done in psychology, which has such wildly varying results more often than not, as to mean next door to nothing what so ever. Bloody garbage for fantasists and poppycock merchants at best, and snake oil at worst! Kick the psychologists out, replace them with neurologists only. That is going to get you results worth reading over.

Aside from maybe feeling the need to vent off any built up trollish energies, I cant fathom why you showed up in the first place, and are still in here.

You have a total disdain and lack of understanding of the wide fields of brain / mind sciences, no experience or apparent interest in the specific topic, you're dodging responding to or even acknowledging basically every thing people are saying within the thread, while there's clearly absolutely nothing that could ever compell you to even take a moderate sort of stance. Just endless jabs along the lines of 'NOPE! The human mind isn't even real.'

Your words there remind me of back in the day. I had begun network engineering / admin school... and quickly figured out that what those guys mostly do is screw with MS OS's. There's endless stuff that can go wrong with in an OS (especially back in the late 90's early 00's), where there's simply no way to take a scientific measurement to pinpoint a problem. Then there's new versions of Windoze coming out every couple years, where they switch all these little things around while adding new things. And you have to learn each new version, its mandatory, as it likely would be for you to get new certifications every couple years. And then there's other OS's that might be part of your network. ARGH!

So I dropped that noise and went for electronics engineering. Real science stuff! All it was, it just wasn't how I was meant to live my life. I didn't set about going into computer forums etc to trash people for using a MS OS, or whatever. I just moved on. Actually, computers still are core tools in everything I've done since.

Anyways, I only recall ever seeing you post in political threads. And you sure do usually seem to like to act like you know what you're talking about. My typical impression is you use up the entire character count in your responses. And often I am impressed with your viewpoints...

If only you had ever done stuff that the topic is about, perhaps you'd have gained the insights etc to avoid hypocrisy by realizing things such as political science is every bit as "Bloody garbage for fantasists and poppycock merchants at best, and snake oil at worst!" as se Psychology, if not worse...

AND, perhaps you'd have the ability to realize that Political Science only explains a small sliver of all that it is to be human, and our affairs. As does Neurology that you mentioned.

You could put your entire life into becoming guru on those two specific fields that fall under what I call the "Brain / Mind Sciences", and yet know didly squat really in terms of the human condition etc etc.

Note that in my view, social aspects of humanity fall under said "Brain / Mind Sciences" (it's where they come from).

Each of the many fields are but aspects of the whole that is us. Windows of perception. None of them yet complete, because we're not that smart yet, but each window all of them continue to grow larger so that we're able to see the ull picture in perfect scientific clarity, or whatever.

Particle sciences? Ultimately the bulk of all that comes down to limited set(s), bound to mathematical constants. That's nothing in comparison to all that is involved with humanity.

Consider, say you want to understand the mind, well you wont figure out the full picture of all that is 'mind' without also studying the brain. Likewise, you wont figure out much about the mind without the various neuroscience fields, or without psychology. You wont get a full picture of psychology without social psychology. Philosophy speaks a great deal towards the human experience, and this is interesting because there are numerous sets of philosophical 'viewpoints', and not hardly any of them are entirely wrong, or right. Like all of these other Mind / Brain Science fields, by having some concept of each of them only then can you grasp the complexity and insights found in what we call Philosophy. And yet that speaks to but a fraction of the human experience. Now comes in social science / sociology, political science, and that's right religion.

Oh, and lets not forget, we can't grasp much about the mind without the study of consciousness. And we cant hardly come to realize much of anything even about our very own consciousness if se we're a square that only ever experienced a sugar rush, caffeine and maybe an energy drink until 21 and then only ever drank booze after that, at whatever rate.

In this discussion: Normal + Square = Narrow View. The 'more normal & square the more narrow viewed, or narrowly comprehensive at least, if to ourselves, it would also about inherently have bigger implications for us when regarding our potential when trying to imagine other consciousnesses (people, or whatever), for example. Consider simple reference points like someone who is totally booksmart but not at all street smart, and the guy his opposite, and then versus someone who is neither, all versus someone who is well honed with both, or someone who is only TV smart... all of these traits along these lines, the more each is or is not hardwired into the core of an individual surely plays major part in how broadly a person could perceive 'pretty much whatever' that we 'see' with our insight, etc, all the stuff we 'see' that doesn't purely pour in thru our primary senses I'm talking about here.

I mean imagine if only stuff that had a fancy published paper assortment 'proving' it exists, or can take a dump out of their tail end like normal people, or whatever that could be taken for granted, with this hardliner RAWRR if anything that could be discussed doesn't have already documented & verified its very own specific mathematical constant or that kind of thing, and properly published

Intelligence would factor into any sort of hypothetical computations about that, but then again its also like a unique type of intelligence (as in aspect, of a set in any given person), that would also score into any sort of 'Total Combined Intelligence' assessment of a person.

Remember: We dont see with your eyes, while our total ability to perceive (anything and every) AND comprehend AND run 'all the angles' isn't limited to our raw primary senses inputs. The nervous system (which includes the brain of course) handles most of the sensory of the data for our conscious self, beneath the surface. Those systems, processes, are inherent, and ideally unchanging, the stuff of our "nature". All the rest, the stuff of our "nurture", which perception is at the core of, well now that ideally is changing, ever expanding and evolving, for each and every one of us. Otherwise, we by nature grow hardwired, or as I say "stuck on stupid". Where the more we know, the more new stuff, PERSPECTIVES we learn, that is the path to, the path is Nirvana.

IgnoranceIsntBlisss:

Is consciousness only defined by the Beta Wave frequency a person happens to be in?

Your question informs me that you are misunderstanding many aspects of the discussion. Consciousness is not defined by frequency, frequency simply correlates to a particular quantified conscious state predicated on the level of neural network dampening.

Each of us are analogous to a quantum particle. When a particle is at rest phase (lowest energy level), it simply oscillates sedately about its centre. It is held in this state by a non-impacting, non-invasive environment. When an external energy wave propagates through its environment, it excites the particle proportionally to the level of the energy wave's perturbation. This causes the particle to oscillate at a higher frequency, raising it out of rest phase, but once the energy wave has passed, the particle returns back to its rest phase. I'll not discuss the direct impact on the particle by either an energy wave or another particle's field.

Every piece of data stimuli, external (from outside the body - bombardment of a diverse array of energy radiations) and internal (from within the body - proprioceptive - electro-chemical interactions) act upon us like the previously discussed energy wave. They impinge upon us and raise us up into a state of awareness (exitation)...the conscious state. I posit that the important point to bear in mind is that sensory stimulations, both external and internal, do not emerge into an already present steady-state consciousness that is entirely independent from the stimuli. The stimuli cause consciousness.

Like the particle, when we are in an awakened 'state' of consciousness, we have been raised out of our lowest energy phase and excited into an higher one. It really is that simple. We are not consciousness itself, because consciousness is not a 'thing'. It is a 'state of condition' our bodies enter into when impacted on by energy radiations, and our tuned narrow spectrum sensory organs react to their presence by firing electrical impulses along the PNS (peripheral nervous system) towards the spinal cord and up to the brain. The impulses are mediated by chemicals at the synaptic sites, which either inhibit or allow the synapse to fire.

If the signal reaches the brain, it is transcoded by some as yet unknown mechanism into what becomes our normal qualia experience. Thus, the brain is receiving millions of signals every second, and is transmitting signals back down to the body. Signals going towards the brain are sensory signals, whilst those coming from the brain are motor signals. Hallucinogens interfere with the chemical interactions at the synapses in the brain and body, thus, altering the signal and warping the transcoding of the signal.

Consciousness is simply a field, similar to a particle's field, but where the particle has only one field, our consciousness is made up of millions of micro-fields switching on and off very rapidly. As one micro-field of consciousness is raised by a unit of stimulation, another previous one is fading (this is where we get our sense of time from). Of course, a single micro-field alone cannot place the whole body into consciousness, but the millions of micro-fields of consciousness do. The brain presents them as as one coalesced field.

We are 'aware' that we are 'aware'. Again this is down to another type of stimulation. I call it cross-referenced looped feed back stimulation. As the brain transcodes incoming data stimuli signals, it cross references the signal with memory, and if it finds a correlation it presents it as a familiar qualia experience, but if the data stimuli signal is new, and if the data stimuli stream lasts, it encodes it into memory. Firstly it holds it in short-term memory, where all current qualia experience is experienced (our level of wakeful consciousness), and then moves it into long-term memory storage (the subconscious, where 'personhood', the 'you' that is 'you' is stored).

The brain cross-references all signals for filtration purposes, but we do not sense this. There is no need to encode the data stimuli signal if they are already stored, which aids the brain's efficiency in dealing with data stimuli signals. Basically, when you wake from sleep, you come 'online' from the subconscious, and the qualia experience of that is our perception of mind. We do not have a mind that is conscious, but a conscious that is experienced as mind.

Our state of consciousness occurs within a narrow frequency spectrum determined by the tuning, both external and internal, of our sensory organs and systems. We don't see infra red with our eyes because it is beyond their tuned frequency, therefore we do not have a natural consciousness of it.

I hope this clarifies things for you?

a reply to: elysiumfire

Stimulating stuff!

But simply equating / interpreting our consciousness in raw singular terms (i.e. particle physics) is still missing the bigger picture.

Every one has that built in universal stimuli processing machine. And everyone every single brain, every single mind (and therefore consciousness) there ever was is unique. I imagine se anole lizard brains, compared to ours, are relatively carbon copies to ours at the average time of death. We're the most complicated nouns in the known universe. The best part, unlike the universe itself, as far as we'll probably ever be able to detect, above the raw 'OS', and machinery that each of us possess, we can develop ourselves -the power of our consciousness via our scopes of perception- in ways few of us could possibly truly ever fully appreciate.

Check out my last post.

Our state of consciousness occurs within a narrow frequency spectrum determined by the tuning, both external and internal, of our sensory organs and systems. We don't see infra red with our eyes because it is beyond their tuned frequency, therefore we do not have a natural consciousness of it.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Just because we dont see it with our raw sensory circuits, doesn't mean we cannot conscious of it; that the scope of our perception & comprehension is stuck on 'stupid' (ignorance, etc) because our eyes cannot look upon it.

We each develop our own states of consciousness, or hardly at all with some people, our entire lives. And there's simply no other more profound 'thing' regarding this notion than psychedelics. One day maybe you'll be able to understand, but words alone cant possibly give you the ability to see / comprehend / appreciate certain things.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: namelesss
...when the human genome became known to him, winning him said prize.

Actually, the prize was for discovering the molecular structure of DNA, quite a different thing.

Corrected, although the point remains valid.

It would be more a matter of looking at the x-ray crystallographic data and having an intuitive leap that you could get that pattern from a double helix structure.

I do think that it is that intuitive leap that is what we are talking about.
There are certain conditions supportive of such Zen/genius/intuitive leaps!

I'm actually partial to the opinion that hallucinogenics turn down the threshold on your pattern-matching functions sort of the way a schizophrenic's miswiring does. So you see 'connections' that may not be there, but occasionally you can see some you were ignoring. Among a lot of other less useful side effects.

I find that I can tentatively agree with you that entheogens inhibit our 'pattern matching function'.
By 'pattern matching function' (something any monkey can excel at), I am hearing the common mundane day to day 'Consciousness' of the average ape, uh.. person. All religious practices, such as 'incessant prayer/chanting, meditation, fasting, self flagellation, whatever... is all the average folk had to use to decrease the O2 and increase the CO2 in their brains (what the entheogens do Now!; entheogens were used, but mostly by mystics).
The 'brain' is primarily a 'reducing' apparatus, limiting input to the immediately 'pragmatic', the common day to day (primitive) 'pattern matching function'; only 'pre-programed patterns' matter. Too many 'new patterns' might well leave you teetering on the Abyss!
To inhibit that 'reducing valve' function might make you a bit less pragmatic, at the moment, but there is more input, perhaps, more context for that Zennish leap of intuition/Knowing that will cure the cancer (seems 'pragmatic' to me, ultimately...), or paint a Mona Lisa, or leave you Enlightened, in the transcendental state of unconditional Love!

We cannot ever perceive that which does not exist!
Everything exists! *__-

Interesting. I think also consciousness is probably very misunderstood, many people seem to give it more meaning than it really has, which is basically I am aware I am observing.

Wow! All those philosophers and thinkers throughout the millennia just needed to see your one line definition of Consciousness.
How am I to have a conversation with someone who is Conscious of thoughts that Consciousness is 'overrated' and believes them'?

You can be conscious in a dream.

Perhaps you mean 'lucid'.
Are you lucid in 'this' dream?

Ps (no major rebuttals so far as were predicted by bedlam)

If there's something particular that you'd like rebutted, bring it on.
(I Love this mental masturbation!)

This argument doesn't make much sense.

My implication and entire message here is to read what PSYCHOLOGY is calling ELEVATED conscious.

Yes,...my other underlying point which you made for me is objectiveness is "most likely" a "goal" and not "reality". An "observer" is "subject" to the "reality" they constituted.

If you go to the study from this op, you can go on to Nature and read the paper. The next step would be to enter your rebuttal to a journal for other scientists to review.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Every one has that built in universal stimuli processing machine. And everyone every single brain, every single mind (and therefore consciousness) there ever was is unique. I imagine se anole lizard brains, compared to ours, are relatively carbon copies to ours at the average time of death.

By that I didn't mean anole lizards brains are the same as ours. That each individual lizard brain would be like carbon copies, where each human brain would be like pages copied by different people with a jumbo array box of crayons and all sorts of different types of paper, copied by different people with different handwriting skill levels.

Back to your window, how does creativity (for example) fit into that framing? Is it not a part of, does it not play a role on the 'heights' of our consciousness? Intelligence? How does your math model put that into perspective for us here; tie all this stuff together?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been axed already. To go any further with it would be violating the T&C. But as already explained, it'd be pointless for someone who has broken on through to other other side to try to describe it to someone who has not.

How simple it would be if you could actually come up with an example of something, anything, objective which has been facilitated by the use of hallucinogens. Some objective understanding that could only be achieved under their influence. I'll wait, surely you can manage one.

www.inc.com...

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: stormcell
www.theguardian.com...


That's right, Adam Curtis had this as a major plot device in his latest and greatest documentary: HyperNormalisation (2016)


www.bbc.co.uk...
www.newyorker.com...

While DARPA invented the 'internet' infrastructure, modeled after the human brain, it was acid hippies that 'invented' cyberspace.

Dang....all you posters are deep fertile thinkers.......the thread is fellowship and a rap session like people used to do when tripping in the seventies.....I learned a lot just on three pages, thanks guys cool rap session

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: namelesss
...when the human genome became known to him, winning him said prize.

Actually, the prize was for discovering the molecular structure of DNA, quite a different thing.

Corrected, although the point remains valid.

It would be more a matter of looking at the x-ray crystallographic data and having an intuitive leap that you could get that pattern from a double helix structure.

I do think that it is that intuitive leap that is what we are talking about.
There are certain conditions supportive of such Zen/genius/intuitive leaps!

I'm actually partial to the opinion that hallucinogenics turn down the threshold on your pattern-matching functions sort of the way a schizophrenic's miswiring does. So you see 'connections' that may not be there, but occasionally you can see some you were ignoring. Among a lot of other less useful side effects.

I find that I can tentatively agree with you that entheogens inhibit our 'pattern matching function'.
By 'pattern matching function' (something any monkey can excel at), I am hearing the common mundane day to day 'Consciousness' of the average ape, uh.. person. All religious practices, such as 'incessant prayer/chanting, meditation, fasting, self flagellation, whatever... is all the average folk had to use to decrease the O2 and increase the CO2 in their brains (what the entheogens do Now!; entheogens were used, but mostly by mystics).
The 'brain' is primarily a 'reducing' apparatus, limiting input to the immediately 'pragmatic', the common day to day (primitive) 'pattern matching function'; only 'pre-programed patterns' matter. Too many 'new patterns' might well leave you teetering on the Abyss!
To inhibit that 'reducing valve' function might make you a bit less pragmatic, at the moment, but there is more input, perhaps, more context for that Zennish leap of intuition/Knowing that will cure the cancer (seems 'pragmatic' to me, ultimately...), or paint a Mona Lisa, or leave you Enlightened, in the transcendental state of unconditional Love!

We cannot ever perceive that which does not exist!
Everything exists! *__-

Interesting. I think also consciousness is probably very misunderstood, many people seem to give it more meaning than it really has, which is basically I am aware I am observing.

Wow! All those philosophers and thinkers throughout the millennia just needed to see your one line definition of Consciousness.
How am I to have a conversation with someone who is Conscious of thoughts that Consciousness is 'overrated' and believes them'?

You can be conscious in a dream.

Perhaps you mean 'lucid'.
Are you lucid in 'this' dream?

Ps (no major rebuttals so far as were predicted by bedlam)

If there's something particular that you'd like rebutted, bring it on.
(I Love this mental masturbation!)

This argument doesn't make much sense.

My implication and entire message here is to read what PSYCHOLOGY is calling ELEVATED conscious.

I would think that one would inquire of those exhibiting signs of 'elevated Consciousness' (whatever that might mean), then those who merely study (imagine) them.

If you go to the study from this op, you can go on to Nature and read the paper. The next step would be to enter your rebuttal to a journal for other scientists to review.

Not interested.
I know better than joining 'that' daisy chain of inbreds!
What I present here, though, is always at the knife and fork of your own original critical evaluation, and anyone reading this stuff, and I am here to answer questions.
Here.
Now.

a reply to: namelesss

Why would I ask you questions or care about your response?

You haven't even read the study, nor noted what they are referring to as elevated consciousness.

The clinical examples I listed include patients being cured of mood disorders and replicated results in new patients.

I have made zero claims here, just pointing out the multiple reasons this is interesting to study.

Including over sensory disorders and phobia.

a reply to: namelesss

would you say meditation can expand your consciousness?

originally posted by: booyakasha
a reply to: namelesss

would you say meditation can expand your consciousness?

I find that I cannot answer your question as asked as I do not Know what Consciousness is.
I might venture, though, that Zen Meditation (there are so many flavors of meditation these days) removes the boundaries/limitations of the egoic 'self', which then finds greater access to Consciousness; other Perspectives, expanded Knowledge/experience.
There is no 'my' Consciousness; the same One Universal Consciousness peeks from behind all 'eyes'!

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: namelesss

Why would I ask you questions or care about your response?

I wouldn't know, but that there is a question that you asked of me.
If you don't care about the response to the question that you posted (nor know why you asked it), there is something 'wrong' with you.

Why do humans beings experience a different view of the "reality" when they're under the effect of these "drugs"?

Simple, the entire context is altered, that Perspectives are different in different contexts is no surprise.
Paint a red film on the lens of a telescope and then wonder why the Universe is seen as red...
Or am I wasting my time?

If you have a problem with my answers, don't ask questions, or don't respond.

a reply to: namelesss

What are states of consciousness other than scopes of perspective?

a reply to: namelesss

I have no problem. You just have an ignorant answer.

Why is the brain so active?

Why are patients able to over come mood disorders in clinical testing with controls?

What is consciousness in pyshological terms.

Your metaphor is rediculous and doesn't take in account the study or any of its predecessors.

Your commenting on a subject you have no information on.

That became obvious when you started responding hence why would I care cmoment.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: namelesss

What are states of consciousness other than scopes of perspective?

I have no notion of 'states of Consciousness.
All I Know is that there is One Consciousness, One State, One Reality, One God, One Universe, One Truth, One Nature... One!
Omni- = One!

If a 'state of Consciousness' = a singular unique momentary Perspective, then the One Consciousness is comprised of ALL 'states', again, ALL inclusive, again Omni- = One! *__-

a reply to: namelesss

Sheeeeeeit.

Good luck with that.