Surveying the landscape => A paranormal, religious future?

I don't know. Something about this approach does not gel with me. Perhaps I'm just a romantic.

It seems to me that attempting to reduce the essentially subjective to objective data points rather destroys that very subjectivity. I firmly believe that our true nature is subjective - that reality depends on (and arises from) mind and that mind is naturally subjective. So Love, Beauty, feelings, etc., are not computable although you could make a case for some kind of arbitrary measurement criteria - degrees of happiness, maybe? Yet the Hard Problem is hard for that very reason - it is subjective and not reducible. When I say not computable, I mean that you can't program the love you feel for your new-born child or the pleasure of the smell of freshly baked bread. For all the inflated claims for AI I am confident that it will never be able to do that.

We strongly agree that AI will not be feeling bored or excited, because let's remember it is only a simulation.  There is nothing directly subjective about it.  The "magic" is in the sleight of hand, where AI simulates the outcomes of intelligence, well.  It is designed to produce the same objective kind of outcomes that do naturally come from mind.   Mind, QM and AI process the same kind of mutual information structures.

The math for the MTC is whiz-bang with formal logic and puts the outcomes of bio-information processing and that of binary code processing on equal footing.  The real-thang and the sim can be seen on nearly equal terms.  Living things, in some ways, do embody algorithms.  In stark contrast the MTC (mathematical theory of communication), can not by definition be about meaning.  It is specifically excluded.
 
Not so, with the meaning/intent aspects of information science.  Bio-information is dripping with it.  We can measure functional and creative meanings having a role in surrounding ecologies.  Bio-information is the phenomena of minds using meaning to change what happens in the real world.

Look, I'm not smart about this stuff, I just have a working perspective about what is simple and general.  Likewise, I have an agenda, one that protects and promotes the fact that Psi is an important part of the human mental environment.  As said, I appreciate each person's ideas about deeper meanings and personal experience.  I am not looking to take anybody's precious from them, but................  

If the Psi conversation was ever to turn to - "oh, here is what we are confirming as we go along" -  then the Pscience ball gets rolling.  We (Psi supporters) are not going to move with solid footing unless it is in concert with the growing awareness of Psi in natural processes.

I humbly bow and open my heart to those who want say that - "there is Supernatural Psi as the Revelation of my culture or of my personal meditations!  It is important spiritual expression.  Why should a deeper meaning to Psi, get in the way of learning about its role in the environment.  If there is a Wise source sending signals to living things, it would make sense that the communication pathway was a built-in part of nature.

But to the purpose at hand >>>> Psi as Revelation can be True but, still be right in the way!  And be a negative orientation to the general public at this time, as receptivity goes down as soon as there is mystic guidance to a science thesis.  The marketing situation now is that the colors of religion might hold back good ideas about Psi.  We know the factual basis of this, as it is the favorite beef here, whenever it happens.

It is obvious to me that route to freedom of expression about Psi, comes with reason, planning and executing a scientific based research effort.  A program that shows how mind works to produce the bio-information systems we can observe as current and past phenomena.  Marketing the facts can grow deep roots, in the grounding of how Psi is part of natural life.

And still paves the way for acceptance when it has spiritual implications.

We strongly agree that AI will not be feeling bored or excited, because let's remember it is only a simulation.  There is nothing directly subjective about it.  The "magic" is in the sleight of hand, where AI simulates the outcomes of intelligence, well.  It is designed to produce the same objective kind of outcomes that do naturally come from mind.   Mind, QM and AI process the same kind of mutual information structures.

The math for the MTC is whiz-bang with formal logic and puts the outcomes of bio-information processing and that of binary code processing on equal footing.  The real-thang and the sim can be seen on nearly equal terms.  Living things, in some ways, do embody algorithms.  In stark contrast the MTC (mathematical theory of communication), can not by definition be about meaning.  It is specifically excluded.

Well, I think this viewpoint contains a contradiction.

One the one hand it is acknowledged that consciousness is real, and is not present in the simulation. On the other, it is postulated that the simulation stands on equal footing with biological systems. Since one system is conscious and the other is not, they cannot stand on equal footing.

Well - I suppose  they could if one subscribes to epiphenomenalism, as so eloquently described by Audrey Hepburn
"consciousness as a mere accessory of physiological processes
whose presence or absence makes no difference what[so]ever."

However, perhaps that is indeed the view you are expressing and I would have to say I find that a most profoundly depressing outlook. As well as being incorrect of course

Well, I think this viewpoint contains a contradiction.

One the one hand it is acknowledged that consciousness is real, and is not present in the simulation. On the other, it is postulated that the simulation stands on equal footing with biological systems. Since one system is conscious and the other is not, they cannot stand on equal footing.

I - maybe poorly - was pointing to HOW they are different.  There is NO postulation or insinuation that they are on equal footing.

Both virtual systems and bio-information systems process information measuring with a standard, which is the creation of useful mutual information, per the MTC.  A mirror can look like the real object.  The mirror can not process info on its own.

The aspect of information that is active - like forces in physics - is the effect of mind on the informational environment.  B. Libet has proved the probabilities change before conscious awareness.  Linguistics, Psychology, Sociology all have a basis that formally addresses how "meanings" are active and patterned.  Neuro-science doesn't have the scope for researching intent and understanding.  They are primary for meaningful and focused behavior and not to be found in the wiring.  The content is non-physical and manifested independently.

You are trying to pound me with "consciousness".  Do you mean sub-consciousness is excluded?  Are thermostats conscious?  Is consciousness just the awareness of being aware?  The easy levels of the mystery are kept in tact and hidden, as long as we embrace vague.  There is plenty to say about mind, character and spiritual evolution - that can be better understood in the future by opening our eyes to what is in front of us.

Formal methodological practices that map information processing to behavior are describing the activity of mind.  It is hard slow work.  It may not give you a spiritual qualia - but it is practical and can address the reality of Psi data, in a professional manner.

ok crickets.....

Here is the example being set.  Ray Moody is not a scientist who works with the statistical models, about which, I drone on and on.  But he is an outstanding researcher and a solid public personality in the bigger picture.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/...story.html

 
Man behind ‘near-death experience’ ponders the afterlife
By Piet Levy| Religion News Service April 12, 2012

Raymond Moody has spent nearly 40 years looking forward, trying to understand what happens when people die. That pursuit led to the publication of “Life After Life” in 1975, a seminal collection that actually coined the term “near-death experience.”

“I felt the question of the afterlife was the black hole of the personal universe: something for which substantial proof of existence had been offered but which had not yet been explored in the proper way by scientists and philosophers,” Moody writes in “Paranormal.” His fascination only deepened after befriending a psychiatrist at the university, George Ritchie, who had his own near-death experience, and even felt that his experience had given him at times a “direct line with God.”

Ritchie’s was the first of many near death stories Moody heard. He found some commonalities: an out-of-body experience, the sensation of traveling through a tunnel, communicating with dead relatives, encountering a bright light (thought by some to be Jesus, God or an angel), and when they came back, a sense that there was truth in all the great faiths.

In “Paranormal,” Moody writes that “Life After Life” was so successful — it sold more than 10 million copies — in part because it didn’t entertain a religious bias. “People no longer had to keep it in the closet or worry about people thinking they were crazy,” Moody said. “It gave us legitimate consolation.”

ok crickets.....

Here is the example being set.  Ray Moody is not a scientist who works with the statistical models, about which, I drone on and on.  But he is an outstanding researcher and a solid public personality in the bigger picture.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/...story.html

Stephenw, I have to confess to having some difficulty following most of your posts. Perhaps because I am not familiar with your terminology or maybe just that your writing style is somehow incompatible with my comprehension. In this case, I fail to see the point you are making by introducing Raymond Moody and his research? Are you suggesting that we don't appreciate scientific research into this subject? If so, you couldn't be more wrong (at least in my case and, I suspect, that goes for others here too).

I have great regard for the work of Bruce Greyson, Ian Stevenson, Raymond Moody and many others. I joined a group while I was still living in the UK which was created by and organised by scientists: The Scientific and Medical Network which is dedicated to a scientific approach to these subjects.

My earlier point about being uncomfortable with attempts to reduce the subjective nature of these phenomena (consciousness included) to objective data points in no way diminished the work done by scientists brave enough to become involved in such research. Statistics are fine and can be a good guide but, again, you can't compute feelings.

Are you suggesting that we don't appreciate scientific research into this subject? If so, you couldn't be more wrong (at least in my case and, I suspect, that goes for others here too).

I have great regard for the work of Bruce Greyson, Ian Stevenson, Raymond Moody and many others. I joined a group while I was still living in the UK which was created by and organised by scientists: The Scientific and Medical Network which is dedicated to a scientific approach to these subjects.

My earlier point about being uncomfortable with attempts to reduce the subjective nature of these phenomena (consciousness included) to objective data points in no way diminished the work done by scientists brave enough to become involved in such research. Statistics are fine and can be a good guide but, again, you can't compute feelings.

I did not imply - in any way - that you and others don't appreciate the science coming from paranormal research.  In fact, it is because many here do, that I think my ideas contribute.  The context I see myself in, is a strong supporter of Psi, who thinks there is a path forward.

The obvious purpose contained in the quote, was to point out that Dr. Moody and others objectively think that the lack of religious embedding of his work, Life after Life, helped sales and acceptance of the idea.  This is a real world example of what I said.

nothing more and nothing less.

I made points about how the data supporting non-signal based information transfer (Psi) is clouded when the framework is adorned by metaphysical décor.   Likewise, as an outlier position, I also think that we can understand the processes that generate Love and Wisdom, as well as matter/energy and information/intent.

Why the emotions and striking-back?

ps.  I checked out the website for Scientific and Medical Network the first time you linked it.  And thought it was outstanding.

Peter Fenwick is a scientist with whom I'm quite familiar.  He is listed as President Emeritus.

 Fenwick's interest in near-death experiences was piqued when he read Raymond Moody's book Life After Life. Initially skeptical of Moody's anecdotal evidence, Fenwick reassessed his opinion after a discussion with one of his own patients, who described a near-death experience very similar to that of Moody's subjects.[10] Since then, he has collected and analysed more than 300 examples of near-death experiences.[11]
He has been criticised by some in the medical community for arguing that human consciousness can survive bodily death.[12] Fenwick argues that human consciousness may be more than just a function of the brain.[8][13]

The plain fact is that none of us understands these phenomena. As for the soul and life after death, they are still open questions, though I myself suspect that NDEs are part of the same continuum as mystical experiences.

[[/q

This is well presented,  Survival is addressed as a process conclusion, not a narrative.

Statistics are fine and can be a good guide but, again, you can't compute feelings.

So correct, and right on many levels.  It is appropriate that you remind me.  There is danger in thinking that if you can simulate (compute) being alive - that a living spirit has been captured - like in magical fantasy.  Sims can sort the past and predict the future.  They remain just copies - sharing structured mutual information with subjects.  They are not physical in the here and now.

Clearly, I advocate observing living things and documenting their behavior.  And that this will lead to understanding mind and Psi. This is data for Biology, Psychology and Bio-informatics.  Living things - like tress and plants - have more information processes going on than commonly thought.  A larger scope of actual feelings/emotions from living things can be inferred from behavior.  It is straightforward science.  New pathways for living things to communicate with their environments are being discovered daily.

Living thing's experiences are not a computation!!  They are direct immersion and manipulation of both mental and physical "stuff".
Patterns in the creation of mutual information can be understood, more formally.  Mental outcomes simulated.  This data can speak to the reality of Psi.  BUT, having a good mirror image of forest behavior or Psi, as well as predictive models of future outcomes -- should never lead to the idea of computing feelings.

This research yields information objects that are objective about subjective states.  Objects like codes, semiotic recognition,  stimulation of appropriate hormones or any other signal that binds affordances to living things.  The creation of signs, symbols, instinct and intent are not magic or liquid consciousness.  They are produced from mind copying and manipulating information in its own best interest.

Some of the things you mention ring remote bells in my recall so I'll just offer the vague recollections as something that might interest you. Obviously I don't have your depth of knowledge on these subjects (I'm more of a browser than a student) but they piqued my interest in the past.

Firstly, about living things and computation. I remember reading about an argument going on in the area of consciousness studies where Roger Penrose was insisting that human thinking is not computational (contrary to the latest AI proponents). Actually, I read his book: The Emperor's New Mind though most of it went over my head but it prompted me to look at Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem too. My take from all of this was that, even though these great thinkers are not supporting my own philosophy, they do confirm certain aspects such as the non-computability stuff. Penrose is an affirmed materialist but freely admits that the Hard Problem confounds him.

Penrose talks about the mystery of the "Orchestration" part of Orch Or in the attached video and that reminded me of other videos I have seen about the complex orchestration in the living body, from cells to hormones, as you allude to. Instinct is another of my hobby-horses and I still maintain that behaviour can't be "hard wired" in the sense that darwinists would have us believe. That's a whole other discussion though.

https://youtu.be/hXgqik6HXc0

 Penrose is an affirmed materialist but freely admits that the Hard Problem confounds him.

Penrose talks about the mystery of the "Orchestration" part of Orch Or in the attached video and that reminded me of other videos I have seen about the complex orchestration in the living body, from cells to hormones, as you allude to. Instinct is another of my hobby-horses and I still maintain that behaviour can't be "hard wired" in the sense that darwinists would have us believe. That's a whole other discussion though.

Instinct is a big topic.  I wonder what you think when I call instincts - information objects?

Here is maybe the best Psi paper so far, full of evidence and careful with metaphysics of spirit.  Careful - as well - to whack Materialism for its metaphysics.

 Our proposal does not answer Chalmer’s hard problem of qualia.  But we do suggest that a “burst of consciousness” happens upon a quantum actualization. In this we parallel Hameroff and Penrose’s proposal [36], but we note that their position links an event of consciousness with collapse of a superposition of multiple potential spacetimes into one actual spacetime. They may be correct, but there is no obvious reason to link their version of quantum gravity with an event of consciousness. We would also note that consciousness plays no role in Hameroff and Penrose’s spacetime collapse, so in their model consciousness is not an active agent; it is epiphenomenal.  By contrast, our proposal that reality consists in Possibles and Actuals linked by measurement invites a natural place for Mind: it is the means by which quantum potentials are actualized. The empirical results of psychokinetic experiments support this suggestion. - 
Stuart Kauffman and Dean Radin

  bolding mine
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.01538