Reason evidence is proof

[Tom Butler]

The topic for the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS) (https://bigelowinstitute.org/) is “What is the best available evidence for the Survival of Human Consciousness after Permanent Bodily Death?”

The essays have not been posted as I write this but I have seen a few of the winners. My fear is that they will be mostly compilations of stories, and summaries of past research. If so, the essay contest will not have achieved its goal of furthering the study of survival. Instead, it will just be a grand review of parapsychology.

As I wrote my entry, (https://ethericstudies.org/case-for-the ... ypothesis/) I was visualizing many winning essay explaining evidence and why the evidence is considered evidential. A compilation does not provide that.

Most “evidence” for survival is either witness accounts research results that can be explained with the Super-Psi Hypothesis. In that hypothesis, mind and thought are modeled as being nonphysical. The influence of thought is referred to as Psi. It is propagated in the Psi Field, which is seen as a nonphysical "space." In Super-Psi, it is hypothesized that anomalous access of information (psychic or psi functioning), must be from someone's mind or residual memory in the Psi Field. None comes from discarnate personalities.

Evidence of survival cannot be based on the fact that the incarnate loved one is in a different room from the medium. This is because the Psi Field has been shown to be nonlocal, meaning that the information is everywhere. Also, we know of no way to shield from Psi. That is also why I say an EVP is enabled by the practitioner or an interested observe providing the trans-etheric conduit. The interested observer could be in the next country.

The question that I need to learn how to properly express is “Is an example evidential, and if so, why?” For instance, why is a mediumistically delivered message from a dead person evidence of survival. Why is it not evidence of Super-Psi. An explanation of proof most address that question to be evidential.

My question here is can an example be considered evidential if there is not an adequate explanation (hypothesis, model) as for why?

[Sculptor1]

The Great Scholar's Institute has gone through all evidence with a fine tooth comb and found that none of the supposed evidence or reasons offered by the Bigelow Boys meets the most basic standards for evidence or reason.
They conlclude that there is zero evidence of any "Psi" field; paraspcyhology is a fantasy; and that life after death is definitively absurd.

[Tom Butler]

The Great Scholar's Institute has gone through all evidence with a fine tooth comb and found that none of the supposed evidence or reasons offered by the Bigelow Boys meets the most basic standards for evidence or reason.
They conlclude that there is zero evidence of any "Psi" field; paraspcyhology is a fantasy; and that life after death is definitively absurd.

Sculptor1, can you provide a reference?

[LuckyR]

The topic for the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS) (https://bigelowinstitute.org/) is “What is the best available evidence for the Survival of Human Consciousness after Permanent Bodily Death?”

The essays have not been posted as I write this but I have seen a few of the winners. My fear is that they will be mostly compilations of stories, and summaries of past research. If so, the essay contest will not have achieved its goal of furthering the study of survival. Instead, it will just be a grand review of parapsychology.

As I wrote my entry, (https://ethericstudies.org/case-for-the ... ypothesis/) I was visualizing many winning essay explaining evidence and why the evidence is considered evidential. A compilation does not provide that.

Most “evidence” for survival is either witness accounts research results that can be explained with the Super-Psi Hypothesis. In that hypothesis, mind and thought are modeled as being nonphysical. The influence of thought is referred to as Psi. It is propagated in the Psi Field, which is seen as a nonphysical "space." In Super-Psi, it is hypothesized that anomalous access of information (psychic or psi functioning), must be from someone's mind or residual memory in the Psi Field. None comes from discarnate personalities.

Evidence of survival cannot be based on the fact that the incarnate loved one is in a different room from the medium. This is because the Psi Field has been shown to be nonlocal, meaning that the information is everywhere. Also, we know of no way to shield from Psi. That is also why I say an EVP is enabled by the practitioner or an interested observe providing the trans-etheric conduit. The interested observer could be in the next country.

The question that I need to learn how to properly express is “Is an example evidential, and if so, why?” For instance, why is a mediumistically delivered message from a dead person evidence of survival. Why is it not evidence of Super-Psi. An explanation of proof most address that question to be evidential.

My question here is can an example be considered evidential if there is not an adequate explanation (hypothesis, model) as for why?

Obviously no one knows the future with certainty, but I would not be surprised if life after death and other metaphysical concepts are never proven. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, just that using physical tools to attempt to prove the metaphysical is a fool's errand.

[Sculptor1]

The Great Scholar's Institute has gone through all evidence with a fine tooth comb and found that none of the supposed evidence or reasons offered by the Bigelow Boys meets the most basic standards for evidence or reason.
They conlclude that there is zero evidence of any "Psi" field; paraspcyhology is a fantasy; and that life after death is definitively absurd.

Sculptor1, can you provide a reference?

I could be I cannot.
Please appeal to the moderators, as I am unable to post any links.

[Sculptor1]

The topic for the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS) ***

The essays have not been posted as I write this but I have seen a few of the winners. My fear is that they will be mostly compilations of stories, and summaries of past research. If so, the essay contest will not have achieved its goal of furthering the study of survival. Instead, it will just be a grand review of parapsychology.

As I wrote my entry, ***I was visualizing many winning essay explaining evidence and why the evidence is considered evidential. A compilation does not provide that.

Most “evidence” for survival is either witness accounts research results that can be explained with the Super-Psi Hypothesis. In that hypothesis, mind and thought are modeled as being nonphysical. The influence of thought is referred to as Psi. It is propagated in the Psi Field, which is seen as a nonphysical "space." In Super-Psi, it is hypothesized that anomalous access of information (psychic or psi functioning), must be from someone's mind or residual memory in the Psi Field. None comes from discarnate personalities.

Evidence of survival cannot be based on the fact that the incarnate loved one is in a different room from the medium. This is because the Psi Field has been shown to be nonlocal, meaning that the information is everywhere. Also, we know of no way to shield from Psi. That is also why I say an EVP is enabled by the practitioner or an interested observe providing the trans-etheric conduit. The interested observer could be in the next country.

The question that I need to learn how to properly express is “Is an example evidential, and if so, why?” For instance, why is a mediumistically delivered message from a dead person evidence of survival. Why is it not evidence of Super-Psi. An explanation of proof most address that question to be evidential.

My question here is can an example be considered evidential if there is not an adequate explanation (hypothesis, model) as for why?

Obviously no one knows the future with certainty, but I would not be surprised if life after death and other metaphysical concepts are never proven. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, just that using physical tools to attempt to prove the metaphysical is a fool's errand.

That is an odd response. Life after death is not a metaphysical concept. And metaphysics is only as good as your descriptive system. Such concepts do not submit to "proof" in the sense that the OP is looking for.
The claim here is that life goes on is proven. That is an empirical claim.

[Tom Butler]

LuckyR Thanks for your comment. I agree "that using physical tools to attempt to prove the metaphysical is a fool's errand." However, properly done, a metaphysical thread should imply a cosmological model from which testable hypotheses can be derived. It is the nature of frontier science that many future "facts" begin with observation and conjecture. Survival is one of those.

I have been taught that one cannot claim a truth without explaining why other truths do not work as well. When I write technical proposals, it is necessary to discuss alternatives so that the executive decision maker has the information necessary to make a decision. However, I am allowed to expect my reader has prior knowledge. I expect no less from an academically trained person.

For instance, when a person discusses the dynamics of a falling apple, much of the equation is understood as background science. Such factors as the acceleration of gravity, air resistance and coriolis effect are defined external to the falling apple study. They become engineer's constants and that is allowed because previous science was conducted to establish their parameters.

On the other hand, if I am proposing the company purchase XXX computer system to manage the network, it is necessary that I discuss major contending solutions. My executive could be counted on to ask me "What about that other system?" I would have been remiss if I did not discuss "that other system" or one like it in my proposal.

In things paranormal, parapsychologists are beginning to develop the same sort of supporting material, as found in physical science, from which new thought might inherit credibility. While mainstream science is based on a complex of interrelated principles, such principles are still being established for things paranormal. But they are being established.

Right now, I know of three dominant models for the nature of Psi phenomena. All three have some foundation of fact in that there are measurable, objective effects attributed to them. The Super-Psi Hypothesis is really the Psi Hypothesis on steroids. Most discussions of survival pitch Super-Psi against survival. If I say that a mental medium told me my father said "Hi," it is necessary for me to understand if Super-Psi is a better explanation than my dead father talking. That is, did the medium psychically sense the information from my mind or the mind of someone who knew my father (Super-Psi) or was the message actually imitated by my Father (Survival)?

That is my dilemma. I am about to begin critiquing the BICS essays. Most of the essays I have seen ignored the Super-Psi Hypothesis by claiming that a particular study, experiment or personal account is evidence of survival. The challenge for me as a layperson is to find a reasonable way of pointing out the logical errors without seeming like a "I know better than you" kind of crackpot.

[Gee]

The topic for the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS) (https://bigelowinstitute.org/) is “What is the best available evidence for the Survival of Human Consciousness after Permanent Bodily Death?”

If you are looking for evidence, I don't understand why would limit this to "Human" consciousness. The idea smacks of Western religion where there is a "God" idea and there are humans made in "God's" image, so they are conscious. It looks like you are looking for proof of souls. If you accept evolution, wouldn't you understand that all life is conscious, so there would be other sources for information?

The essays have not been posted as I write this but I have seen a few of the winners. My fear is that they will be mostly compilations of stories, and summaries of past research. If so, the essay contest will not have achieved its goal of furthering the study of survival. Instead, it will just be a grand review of parapsychology.

As I wrote my entry, (https://ethericstudies.org/case-for-the ... ypothesis/) I was visualizing many winning essay explaining evidence and why the evidence is considered evidential. A compilation does not provide that.

I did a quick review of your entry, but it was very long and complex. Maybe a summary would be more productive for this thread?

Most “evidence” for survival is either witness accounts research results that can be explained with the Super-Psi Hypothesis. In that hypothesis, mind and thought are modeled as being nonphysical. The influence of thought is referred to as Psi. It is propagated in the Psi Field, which is seen as a nonphysical "space." In Super-Psi, it is hypothesized that anomalous access of information (psychic or psi functioning), must be from someone's mind or residual memory in the Psi Field. None comes from discarnate personalities.

I agree that "none comes from discarnate personalities".

Evidence of survival cannot be based on the fact that the incarnate loved one is in a different room from the medium. This is because the Psi Field has been shown to be nonlocal, meaning that the information is everywhere. Also, we know of no way to shield from Psi. That is also why I say an EVP is enabled by the practitioner or an interested observe providing the trans-etheric conduit. The interested observer could be in the next country.

I don't think that what I underlined above is true. I think we can and do shield ourselves, maybe not intentionally, but it still happens. If you look up 'institutionalization', you will find information about prisoners, who are put into isolation and go mad from the experience. You may also find information on orphanages; it was learned in the 1930s/1940s that infants under the age of two years can die if the bond is broken with their caregiver. It is called SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. It is my thought that before the age of two, a child has not yet developed enough of a 'self' to properly connect to the Psi "internet" and needs that bond to keep the connection.

There have been a lot of studies on isolation, and it is generally agreed that this is mentally very dangerous and should be studied with caution. You could look into that and see what material they use to isolate the researchers.

A hermit can live on a mountain or in a cave, and he may get a little dotty, but he will not die from it or lose his mind because he is not isolated from life (Psi) -- only from other people. We have found life in caves where we did not think life was possible, but it is always very simple, or single cell, life. So, I think that complex life, like ours, requires a more complex Psi.

So stone dungeons, holes in the ground, and whatever they use to make isolation tents can all block or diminish Psi. Temperature affects Psi, with cold limiting it in some way. And water is incomprehensible as water seems to transmit Psi, or sometimes it seems to block Psi. But it has been many years since I studied this.

The question that I need to learn how to properly express is “Is an example evidential, and if so, why?” For instance, why is a mediumistically delivered message from a dead person evidence of survival. Why is it not evidence of Super-Psi. An explanation of proof most address that question to be evidential.

My question here is can an example be considered evidential if there is not an adequate explanation (hypothesis, model) as for why?

No, it would not be considered evidential, it would be considered imaginative.

Gee

[Tom Butler]

@ Gee, thanks for the comments. They do help me focus on how I am communicating.

I have read several of the selected BICS essays now. (https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php) So far, they read as expected, given the author's previous work. I frankly do not know the most effective way to address such a complex subject. I had hoped for more ergo and less compilation with the essays.

An example of the kind of disclosure I was hoping for is shown James Carpenter's First Sight Theory. It is an intelligent reduction of current understanding about how our mind works. The essays I have read thus far are heavy on history and ultralight on theory. They do provide an excellent study guide for the past. Not so much for the objectives of the contest. [url]http://www.drjimcarpenter.com/about/documents/FirstSightformindfield.pdf[/url]

About shielding Psi. As I said before, the hypothetical Psi Field is a nonphysical medium that propagates the influence of thought. It is modeled as an emergent quality of the physical; however, in Dualism, it is seen as an aspect of the greater reality ... whatever that is. I refer to it as the etheric. An important characteristic of the Psi Field is that it appears to be holographic in that a part is seen to contain the whole. Put another way, it is modeled as nonlocal. Think "here is everywhere in the Psi Field." I think of it for EVP as "Everywhere is here."

A consequence of nonlocality is that, a local effect is able to be experienced everywhere. Nothing appears to obstruct the propagation of Psi. We see this in EVP. For instance, it is possible to record an instances of EVP without a microphone, in an EM shielded enclosure (Faraday Cage), even in a sealed and buried 55Gal can. https://atransc.org/eliminating-rf-contamination/ We also see the effect of nonlocality in the way distance seems irrelevant for Psi functioning.

So when I say "we know of no way to shield from Psi," I literally mean that information in someone's mind is potentially accessible from anywhere in the world. Here, I am not really talking about telepathy. The perception and expression functional areas of our mind appears to have a filter that is controlled by attention, interest and worldview. it is complex.

[3017Metaphysician]

The topic for the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS) (https://bigelowinstitute.org/) is “What is the best available evidence for the Survival of Human Consciousness after Permanent Bodily Death?”

The essays have not been posted as I write this but I have seen a few of the winners. My fear is that they will be mostly compilations of stories, and summaries of past research. If so, the essay contest will not have achieved its goal of furthering the study of survival. Instead, it will just be a grand review of parapsychology.

As I wrote my entry, (https://ethericstudies.org/case-for-the ... ypothesis/) I was visualizing many winning essay explaining evidence and why the evidence is considered evidential. A compilation does not provide that.

Most “evidence” for survival is either witness accounts research results that can be explained with the Super-Psi Hypothesis. In that hypothesis, mind and thought are modeled as being nonphysical. The influence of thought is referred to as Psi. It is propagated in the Psi Field, which is seen as a nonphysical "space." In Super-Psi, it is hypothesized that anomalous access of information (psychic or psi functioning), must be from someone's mind or residual memory in the Psi Field. None comes from discarnate personalities.

Evidence of survival cannot be based on the fact that the incarnate loved one is in a different room from the medium. This is because the Psi Field has been shown to be nonlocal, meaning that the information is everywhere. Also, we know of no way to shield from Psi. That is also why I say an EVP is enabled by the practitioner or an interested observe providing the trans-etheric conduit. The interested observer could be in the next country.

The question that I need to learn how to properly express is “Is an example evidential, and if so, why?” For instance, why is a mediumistically delivered message from a dead person evidence of survival. Why is it not evidence of Super-Psi. An explanation of proof most address that question to be evidential.

My question here is can an example be considered evidential if there is not an adequate explanation (hypothesis, model) as for why?

Nice OP! I've haven't read the links yet, but have always been intrigued with things/phenomena similar to the NDE!!

Just a quick observation concerning the OP title, while photons, gravity and other kinds of 'cosmologically coded' information/wave energy are essentially non-physical things (including some qualities of consciousness/Qualia), I'm wondering why the notion of 'reason' itself is needed (absolute) to ultimately 'prove' an eternal sense of consciousness? Meaning, if one were to use formal logic (basically logico-deductive reasoning) and the limitations thereof, consider that human consciousness itself is not logically possible, yet exists. Then consider in Christianity, the logically impossible phenomenon of a resurrection.

I think the way to think about the relationship between mind and matter, time, eternity (and causation itself), etc. (how, what, where and why the metaphysical could be physical and vise versa/ex nihilo) is to experience that which is not logical. As such, like mathematics and numbers (having its own metaphysical existence), the OP might-could be better served as 'The unreasonable effects of a proof'.

Otherwise, sure,logical analogies that are germane to phenomena are certainly an appropriate means/method to explore some sense or level of 'proof'. ....anyway, just a bit of a footnote there, that's all.

I like your idea/model of an interminable phenomena of information that seems to exist. Can you elaborate a bit more on that?

[Gee]

@ Gee, thanks for the comments. They do help me focus on how I am communicating.

You're very welcome, and thank you! I have started to read some of the essays and find that they provide a great deal of information that I will value and enjoy. I have always done these types of investigations on my own and never really had access to this quality and quantity of information. Of course, when I started out looking for information over 50 years ago, one did not say Psi, because that identified one as a "wacko" and cut off most discussion. Things have started to change.

I have read several of the selected BICS essays now. (https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php) So far, they read as expected, given the author's previous work. I frankly do not know the most effective way to address such a complex subject. I had hoped for more ergo and less compilation with the essays.

An example of the kind of disclosure I was hoping for is shown James Carpenter's First Sight Theory. It is an intelligent reduction of current understanding about how our mind works. The essays I have read thus far are heavy on history and ultralight on theory. They do provide an excellent study guide for the past. Not so much for the objectives of the contest. [url]http://www.drjimcarpenter.com/about/documents/FirstSightformindfield.pdf[/url]

Yes, the subject is extremely complex and massive, but it is made more complex by the thousands of years of interpretation and misinformation that has to be waded through in order to even examine the subject.

I have not yet read "First Sight Theory", but wonder if it is a play on the idea of Second Sight? It has long been assumed that the rational mind is our conscious self or 'first sight', and that the unconscious is produced by our consciousness or "second sight". I suspect that this is actually reversed. I tend to think of the brain as a filter, yes, but also a reflection of consciousness, the unconscious, or Psi, whatever you want to call it. I think this is where we get the idea of an individual self -- from the reflection.

About shielding Psi. As I said before, the hypothetical Psi Field is a nonphysical medium that propagates the influence of thought. It is modeled as an emergent quality of the physical; however, in Dualism, it is seen as an aspect of the greater reality ... whatever that is. I refer to it as the etheric. An important characteristic of the Psi Field is that it appears to be holographic in that a part is seen to contain the whole. Put another way, it is modeled as nonlocal. Think "here is everywhere in the Psi Field." I think of it for EVP as "Everywhere is here."

I see Dualism as just another way to try to reduce consciousness to something that is manageable or knowable. I would term the "Psi Field" as the unconscious and this is where it gets complicated all over again. Emotion works through the unconscious, emotion shows signs of being very much physical, but emotion also likes to ignore time and space.

You say, "a part is seen to contain the whole" as understanding of a Psi Field, but when I studied the logic in the unconscious, I learned that in some levels of the unconscious aspect of mind, "the part represents the whole", which seems like the same explanation to me. I tend to see your Psi Field as simply different terminology for the unconscious.

A consequence of nonlocality is that, a local effect is able to be experienced everywhere. Nothing appears to obstruct the propagation of Psi. We see this in EVP. For instance, it is possible to record an instances of EVP without a microphone, in an EM shielded enclosure (Faraday Cage), even in a sealed and buried 55Gal can. https://atransc.org/eliminating-rf-contamination/ We also see the effect of nonlocality in the way distance seems irrelevant for Psi functioning.

There is a difference between being "able" to be experienced everywhere and actually being experienced everywhere. If there is no shield, no governor, no limitation on experiences, how could we possibly function with experiences attacking us from all over the world? The idea is absurd. If the brain filters these "experiences", then we need to know how it accomplishes this and what else could cause the limitation.

I looked up "Faraday Cage" because I did not know what it was. From what I learned, this type of enclosure can block electric energy, but it does not block magnetic fields. Thought and emotion are not the same things, they do not have the same properties, so I am not sure how valid this testing is, or what it limits.

So when I say "we know of no way to shield from Psi," I literally mean that information in someone's mind is potentially accessible from anywhere in the world. Here, I am not really talking about telepathy. The perception and expression functional areas of our mind appears to have a filter that is controlled by attention, interest and worldview. it is complex.

Has it occurred to you that not being able to shield from Psi, could potentially cause schizophrenia? That the voices that a schizophrenic hears could be your EVP?

It also bothers me that you stated, "that information in someone's mind is potentially accessible from anywhere in the world". Please tell me that you are not interested in some kind of mind control.

I would not say that the filter is controlled by attention, interest, and worldview. I would say that the filter is controlled by bonding, which is controlled by emotion, which is controlled by chemistry. That is why chemistry is used to treat schizophrenia.

Your thoughts are, of course, welcome.

Gee

[Tom Butler]

I think I have a way of thinking about this that will work (for me). Gee's comment made me realize that the mechanism is the missing ingredient. Consider the diagram:



If a person claims something is evidence, it is necessary for the person to place the "evidence" in a context that is understood by readers. While we understand the context of, say a falling apple for proof of gravity, the context for Psi is not well established, and therefore, part of the evidence must include a proposed mechanism. For instance, can the reader be expected to already understand the characteristics of Psi?

There is pretty good science supporting the Psi Field Hypothesis, but the implications of that alone do not support psychic acquisition of information. For instance, the implications of mediumship being evidence of survival are that the acquisition has a different circuit than remote viewing (for instance). The fact that the information is verifiable is not enough.

@ 3017Metaphysician, The terminology I grew up with is that physical means "objective and emergent characteristics--principles." Nonphysical has always intended "unrelated to the physical, not (currently) part of physical science." Gravity, for instance is decidedly an emergent physical quality while the nature of thought is still indeterminant. When the subject is how thought manifest as Psi functioning, thought is generally modeled as physically emergent biological characteristic (Physicalism) or external, possibly preexisting nonphysical characteristic (Dualism).

The system of thought associated with Psi functioning and survival is complex. It is not enough to know that people might be psychic. It is necessary to have a sense of how it occurs. Else, it is too easy to conflate psychic access of information with mediumistic communication with a discarnate personality. Both appear to depend on the same principles. It depends on the intended point of view. Parapsychologists often have an agenda. For instance one of the BICS winners has a history of being a mean-spirited anti-survivalist. His proof was wordy and impressively expressed but it was a none proof--sounds good but meaningless for the subject.

If people do not know the subject well enough to test the assumptions of the essay with personal experience, it is necessary that the essay included the rationale for the "proof." At the same time, I have been looking for an academic-to-layperson exchange of information about what Parapsychologists think about survival by way of this essay. So far, not so good but I still have many essays to read. How did they decide that evidence is proof of survival? Does the author have a rational if we disallow verifiability?

3017Metaphysician, you said "I like your idea/model of an interminable phenomena of information that seems to exist. Can you elaborate a bit more on that?" I do not understand "interminable phenomena." Obviously, my favorite subject is Psi phenomena and I am happy to exchange ideas.

[Tom Butler]

... when I started out looking for information over 50 years ago, one did not say Psi, because that identified one as a "wacko" and cut off most discussion. Things have started to change.

Parapsychologists say they came up with "Psi" as a placeholder until something better comes along but it has become a standard term for the influence of Psi. "Psychic" remains the catchall phrase for anomalous acquisition of information. It avoids the clairvoyance's baggage .

I have not yet read "First Sight Theory", but wonder if it is a play on the idea of Second Sight?

It is the same idea. Carpenter's point is that environmental information is first detected by our mostly unconscious mind where it is processed before being made available to conscious self. If you examine the corollaries, you will see that it provides for psychic perception ... and attention prioritization. I have tried to make it more accessible at https://ethericstudies.org/first-sight-theory/

I tend to think of the brain as a filter, yes, but also a reflection of consciousness, the unconscious, or Psi, whatever you want to call it. I think this is where we get the idea of an individual self -- from the reflection.

There seems to be a clear demarcation between conscious awareness and unconscious functions of the mind. I refer to the unconscious as "mostly unconscious" because one of the results of working toward greater lucidity is more conscious control of the perception and expression forming functions of the mostly unconscious part of our mind. I refer to those functional areas as the Attention Complex. As far as I can tell the Attention Complex is a universally integral part of life fields. Our sense of reality appears to be moderated by it whether we are incarnate or discarnate.

I would term the "Psi Field" as the unconscious and this is where it gets complicated all over again. Emotion works through the unconscious, emotion shows signs of being very much physical, but emotion also likes to ignore time and space.

As I understand the history, parapsychologists proposed the Psi Field as a solution for how the mind is connected to other minds and things physical. It is usually imagined from the body-centric perspective. In practical application, there is the thought as expression of mind and there is the influence of thought as it is propagated in the field. The greater reality behaves as if it is conceptual rather than objective. We think about the concept and not the thing represented by the concept (s).

In effect, parapsychologists deal with the Psi Field as as if it is a film on which a holographic image is impressed. That is why I say they argue that here is everywhere. However, the nonlocal nature of the field can also be seen as everywhere is here. If we equate the etheric nature of the greater reality with the same nonlocality, that makes reality a singularity.

In a cosmological sense, you are right to think of the Psi Field as the unconscious. However, as a matter of practicality when we are dealing with a singularity, it is useful to designate aspects of it as part of us and other aspects that are part of everything else. That is a useful way of accommodating the existence of other minds.

If there is no shield, no governor, no limitation on experiences, how could we possibly function with experiences attacking us from all over the world?

Compare connectivity in the Psi Field with connectivity in the Internet. In a sense, the Internet can be thought of as a single pair of wires on which every device in the world is directly connected. Messages are sent to an address. That is, each digital "word" in the message begins with the intended receiver's address. When the message is sent from device A to device Z, all devices receive the message but only device Z has the address key to decode the message. An important functional area in our mostly subconscious mind is what I refer to as the Attention Limiter. First Sight Theory refers to it as "turning toward" or "turning away" from environmental signals.

To help a cosmology I have been working on make sense, I found it useful to define an Organizing Principle as Perceptual Agreement: Personality must be in perceptual agreement with the aspect of reality with which it will associate. Our ability to experience a particular part of reality depends on our ability to visualize it to form perception. In that way, we appear to be self-limiting. A seeker intends to expand perceptual agreement by gaining understanding. That is the theory.

By the way, you are right about using a "Faraday Cage." A proper test is in an enclosure in which magnetic, audio and electrical signals are blocked.

Has it occurred to you that not being able to shield from Psi, could potentially cause schizophrenia? That the voices that a schizophrenic hears could be your EVP?

It also bothers me that you stated, "that information in someone's mind is potentially accessible from anywhere in the world". Please tell me that you are not interested in some kind of mind control.

I would not say that the filter is controlled by attention, interest, and worldview. I would say that the filter is controlled by bonding, which is controlled by emotion, which is controlled by chemistry. That is why chemistry is used to treat schizophrenia.

I am no psychologist and cannot speak to schizophrenia. However, there does seem to be a fine line between self delusion and refined perception. I am a trained and certified mental medium. When practicing, it is necessary to monitor my sense of reality. But then, that is a whole different subject. Also see https://atransc.org/phantom-voices/

We already have mind control in the sense that, without conscious intervention, our choices tend to be directed by our human's survival instincts. If Dualism is correct, it seems reasonable to think our etheric self is also guided by instincts of a different sort. We share, more or less the same inherited influences but our personal reality is also shaped by lifetime experiences and cultural influence. Just that difference in personal reality is enough to give us a different "address" in the etheric.

Okay, so that is a lot. I enjoy questions and comments like yours. I hope I am making sense.

[3017Metaphysician]

I think I have a way of thinking about this that will work (for me). Gee's comment made me realize that the mechanism is the missing ingredient. Consider the diagram:



If a person claims something is evidence, it is necessary for the person to place the "evidence" in a context that is understood by readers. While we understand the context of, say a falling apple for proof of gravity, the context for Psi is not well established, and therefore, part of the evidence must include a proposed mechanism. For instance, can the reader be expected to already understand the characteristics of Psi?

There is pretty good science supporting the Psi Field Hypothesis, but the implications of that alone do not support psychic acquisition of information. For instance, the implications of mediumship being evidence of survival are that the acquisition has a different circuit than remote viewing (for instance). The fact that the information is verifiable is not enough.

@ 3017Metaphysician, The terminology I grew up with is that physical means "objective and emergent characteristics--principles." Nonphysical has always intended "unrelated to the physical, not (currently) part of physical science." Gravity, for instance is decidedly an emergent physical quality while the nature of thought is still indeterminant. When the subject is how thought manifest as Psi functioning, thought is generally modeled as physically emergent biological characteristic (Physicalism) or external, possibly preexisting nonphysical characteristic (Dualism).

The system of thought associated with Psi functioning and survival is complex. It is not enough to know that people might be psychic. It is necessary to have a sense of how it occurs. Else, it is too easy to conflate psychic access of information with mediumistic communication with a discarnate personality. Both appear to depend on the same principles. It depends on the intended point of view. Parapsychologists often have an agenda. For instance one of the BICS winners has a history of being a mean-spirited anti-survivalist. His proof was wordy and impressively expressed but it was a none proof--sounds good but meaningless for the subject.

If people do not know the subject well enough to test the assumptions of the essay with personal experience, it is necessary that the essay included the rationale for the "proof." At the same time, I have been looking for an academic-to-layperson exchange of information about what Parapsychologists think about survival by way of this essay. So far, not so good but I still have many essays to read. How did they decide that evidence is proof of survival? Does the author have a rational if we disallow verifiability?

3017Metaphysician, you said "I like your idea/model of an interminable phenomena of information that seems to exist. Can you elaborate a bit more on that?" I do not understand "interminable phenomena." Obviously, my favorite subject is Psi phenomena and I am happy to exchange ideas.

Hey Tom!

I'm so sorry I didn't see this reply (I don't think you hit the quote button to alert me through my email). Your reply is important. No worries though; give me an opportunity to read through some of it and I'll get back to you tomorrow... !

[3017Metaphysician]

I think I have a way of thinking about this that will work (for me). Gee's comment made me realize that the mechanism is the missing ingredient. Consider the diagram:



If a person claims something is evidence, it is necessary for the person to place the "evidence" in a context that is understood by readers. While we understand the context of, say a falling apple for proof of gravity, the context for Psi is not well established, and therefore, part of the evidence must include a proposed mechanism. For instance, can the reader be expected to already understand the characteristics of Psi?

There is pretty good science supporting the Psi Field Hypothesis, but the implications of that alone do not support psychic acquisition of information. For instance, the implications of mediumship being evidence of survival are that the acquisition has a different circuit than remote viewing (for instance). The fact that the information is verifiable is not enough.

@ 3017Metaphysician, The terminology I grew up with is that physical means "objective and emergent characteristics--principles." Nonphysical has always intended "unrelated to the physical, not (currently) part of physical science." Gravity, for instance is decidedly an emergent physical quality while the nature of thought is still indeterminant. When the subject is how thought manifest as Psi functioning, thought is generally modeled as physically emergent biological characteristic (Physicalism) or external, possibly preexisting nonphysical characteristic (Dualism).

The system of thought associated with Psi functioning and survival is complex. It is not enough to know that people might be psychic. It is necessary to have a sense of how it occurs. Else, it is too easy to conflate psychic access of information with mediumistic communication with a discarnate personality. Both appear to depend on the same principles. It depends on the intended point of view. Parapsychologists often have an agenda. For instance one of the BICS winners has a history of being a mean-spirited anti-survivalist. His proof was wordy and impressively expressed but it was a none proof--sounds good but meaningless for the subject.

If people do not know the subject well enough to test the assumptions of the essay with personal experience, it is necessary that the essay included the rationale for the "proof." At the same time, I have been looking for an academic-to-layperson exchange of information about what Parapsychologists think about survival by way of this essay. So far, not so good but I still have many essays to read. How did they decide that evidence is proof of survival? Does the author have a rational if we disallow verifiability?

3017Metaphysician, you said "I like your idea/model of an interminable phenomena of information that seems to exist. Can you elaborate a bit more on that?" I do not understand "interminable phenomena." Obviously, my favorite subject is Psi phenomena and I am happy to exchange ideas.

Tom!

Just for 'edification' purposes/sharing of ideas:

1. Gravity: the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass. The force itself, generally, is not visible. Gravity manifests itself through physical objects and quantum particles, i.e., Higgs boson particles/energy fields, etc.. Hence a metaphysical/invisible force field of sorts. (Note that science is not even clear on whether even gravity existed prior to the BB 'model'.)

2. "The nature of thought": Generally, the nature of thought is both physical and metaphysical, as the nature of consciousness itself 'transcends' the emergence theory of inanimate and animate matter.

3. "physically emergent biological characteristic[s]" : requires the 'metaphysical' to encode or propagate 'biological' consciousness (emergence from primordial soup).

Much of that is to say I'm trying to reconcile the notion of the meaning behind the concepts of 'evidence' and 'proof' in the 'Psi model'.... and in the hypothesis of formative causation, 'morphic fields' might also help to explain the biological phenomenon that breaths fire into the equations as it were...