"He said the influence of coherence generated by this group is helping to calm the nation in the midst of the global crisis..." - Global Financial Capital of New York press release, referring to Dr. John Hagelin.
It's interesting to me that when something like this is mentioned, the questions and comments that arise always seem to be 1) Can it be done? (Prove it.), and 2) How is it done? (I'd like a model and some math, please.)
No one ever asks 'Should it be done?'
This press release suggests that a force has been/should be unleashed upon the minds in the 'collective consciousness' (which presumably includes all of us) in order to "break that vicious cycle" and bring "stability to the marketplace" by "helping to calm the nation".
Now, if Hagelin had suggested using a fear-suppressing force that comes from a piece of equipment, or a mandatory psychopharmacological 'holiday' from fear, we would be up in arms. Yet he is telling us that such a force has been employed, without any explicit consent from the 'collective consciousness'. Is how that force works really the most important question we should be asking?
Hagelin is also proposing using "groups of peace-creating experts" applying similar mental techniques to "dramatically reduce violent crime, terrorism, and war." According to the project website, "the inner peace generated by such a peace-creating group radiates into society as an influence of harmony and coherence." He proposes similar ideas for preventing terrorism.
Yet nowhere on any of these websites do I see any discussion of the ethics of deploying these forces. I'm no saint in this area, but I do think that any large-scale effort that purports to be for our collective benefit merits open-forum discussion prior to its deployment. Issuing a press release does not constitute informed consent. Especially if it's issued after the fact.
We are in uncharted ethical waters with Hagelin's actions. Then again, Hagelin isn't alone in directing others to use mental states for the good of the collective. The difference is that Hagelin purports to represent science, and if science is going to be better than religion, it should not assume the right to impose one definition of 'better' over another. Whether that be a better collective state of mind, or better conditions for the world economy. Science is the objective seeking and assessment of facts. The application of that science, especially where it concerns us all, is topic for us all to discuss and decide upon.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Virtue of Vice
"A curiosity like mine is the most agreeable of vices."
Would that it were my only vice.
At some point in the past I acquired the habit of smoking when highly stressed. This usually doesn't amount to more than a few cigarettes over a few days, but I've found that smoking has one particular benefit for which I have yet to find an adequate substitute...
Several times while experimenting with isolating and amplifying feedback signals from the 'aether', it occurred to me that it might be handy to have a dimmer switch by which I could regulate the intensity of the feedback. Sadly, by the time I'm groping about for a dimmer switch, it's usually because something has become overwhelming. (Even something that is excessively positive can be overwhelming because of the excess.) Somewhere during my studies I had come across the idea that smoking tobacco had a grounding effect. (If you are familiar with magick or psychic ideas, you'll probably understand what I mean by 'grounding'.)
At this point it's fair to say that any effects that I believe I experience by smoking might be entirely placebo in nature. Nonetheless, I feel more grounded, more cut-off from the stream of feedback, after I smoke. If this is attributable to an actual chemical effect of nicotine, it's going to take awhile to figure out which one(s). "Nicotine seems to improve cognitive functions... in particular sustained attention, focused attention, working memory, short-term memory, and recognition memory." (Now ask me where I got that quote.)
Sadly, if you is looking for hard data on how nicotine might alter cognitive abilities and perceptions, it's usually not available unless you are looking at something that has been classified as a pathology and from which there is presumably money to be made on a 'cure'. This is also a potent reminder that consciousness, while seeming to be a robust phenomenon, is actually quite a fragile phenomenon, in that the qualitative experience (flavor) of consciousness can change quite dramatically according to the relative proportions of the chemical 'ingredients' in the soup.
Is it any wonder then that finding the recipe for the 'perfect' soup has become such a huge industry? In addition to psychopharmacology, tobacco, caffeine, and alcohol are all industries whose sole purpose is to modify the flavor of your personal soup... (Oh for a cool GDP breakdown graph right about now.)
And yet, I'm about to go pour myself a cup of tea. Tea, because I want the caffeine, yet I know somewhere in the back of my mind that I should cut back on how much of it I consume. From past experience though, I know that my resolution to cut back rarely last for more than a week. I suspect that caffeine shall remain a vice of mine for some time to come...
Would that it were my only vice.
At some point in the past I acquired the habit of smoking when highly stressed. This usually doesn't amount to more than a few cigarettes over a few days, but I've found that smoking has one particular benefit for which I have yet to find an adequate substitute...
Several times while experimenting with isolating and amplifying feedback signals from the 'aether', it occurred to me that it might be handy to have a dimmer switch by which I could regulate the intensity of the feedback. Sadly, by the time I'm groping about for a dimmer switch, it's usually because something has become overwhelming. (Even something that is excessively positive can be overwhelming because of the excess.) Somewhere during my studies I had come across the idea that smoking tobacco had a grounding effect. (If you are familiar with magick or psychic ideas, you'll probably understand what I mean by 'grounding'.)
At this point it's fair to say that any effects that I believe I experience by smoking might be entirely placebo in nature. Nonetheless, I feel more grounded, more cut-off from the stream of feedback, after I smoke. If this is attributable to an actual chemical effect of nicotine, it's going to take awhile to figure out which one(s). "Nicotine seems to improve cognitive functions... in particular sustained attention, focused attention, working memory, short-term memory, and recognition memory." (Now ask me where I got that quote.)
Sadly, if you is looking for hard data on how nicotine might alter cognitive abilities and perceptions, it's usually not available unless you are looking at something that has been classified as a pathology and from which there is presumably money to be made on a 'cure'. This is also a potent reminder that consciousness, while seeming to be a robust phenomenon, is actually quite a fragile phenomenon, in that the qualitative experience (flavor) of consciousness can change quite dramatically according to the relative proportions of the chemical 'ingredients' in the soup.
Is it any wonder then that finding the recipe for the 'perfect' soup has become such a huge industry? In addition to psychopharmacology, tobacco, caffeine, and alcohol are all industries whose sole purpose is to modify the flavor of your personal soup... (Oh for a cool GDP breakdown graph right about now.)
And yet, I'm about to go pour myself a cup of tea. Tea, because I want the caffeine, yet I know somewhere in the back of my mind that I should cut back on how much of it I consume. From past experience though, I know that my resolution to cut back rarely last for more than a week. I suspect that caffeine shall remain a vice of mine for some time to come...
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Why THIS Universe?
"Your train of thought will be altered
So if you must falter, be wise."
With this blog, I hope to expand upon things I've written elsewhere, without unnecessarily repeating myself. The questions or topics you find here may fall outside the strict purview of science, but they are a valid part of a larger discussion on the implications of recasting physics into 5 dimensions of experience.
[DISCLAIMER: The thoughts reserved for this blog are those that are the most speculative and philosophical in nature. In order to make analytical or scientific progress, it is often necessary to play with ideas that one ends up rejecting. Don't assume that I'm completely committed to any ideas that you find here. We're trying things on to see what fits.]
I'm prompted to expand the scope of my writing by several 'aaaah-aah' moments that I've had lately. These are moments when I'm forced to either go further into a 5-dimensional model for an explanation, or to retreat and be a good little 4-dimensional girl for awhile. Honestly, sometimes I choose to retreat.
But if I am going to suggest that consciousness can be seen as having a trajectory through what I'm going to call 'the multiverse', then there should be dynamics that explain how I ended up in this universe, confronted by this anomalous synchronicity or event that is catching my attention and/or making me uncomfortable.
[SIDENOTE: I'm not talking about the multiverse in the sense of a set of universes that exist in physical parallel out there; rather, I'm talking about the idea that consciousness is a limited interface with the real, probabilistic, smeared state of the universe. If you review your interpretations of quantum mechanics, you may find ideas that sound similar. My idea goes further... This interface is dynamic, and those dynamics can be analyzed and quantified. (My apologies to those of you who have heard all this before, but I do feel some need to establish a baseline.) I use the multiverse/'pick the universe' analogy because it is easy to understand.]
My background is in cognition and neuroscience, so eventually I hope to be able to model my ideas in terms of cognitive or neurophysiological dynamics. (Then again, I may crack somewhere along the way and abandon science to live in a quasi-religious trance state. I'm just saying...)
The question 'Why this universe?' reflects more than just an ability to identify that what I am faced with is highly improbable according to 4-dimensional dynamics. (People write books about the impact of highly improbable events. I'm actually reading the earlier book 'Fooled By Randomness' at the moment.) It also reflects the desire to understand why I am confronted with something that is uncomfortable. (Happy synchronicities are easier to dismiss or ignore.) If this model is going to work, then the dynamics that underlie the trajectory of conscious experience through the universe of probability must explain why we would be propelled (as it were) to places/events/experiences that are physically or emotionally uncomfortable .
Traditional answers to this question tend to invoke God, karma, and/or the purpose of life. I think it's simpler than that. I think that the ways in which we store and process information correspond to 'forces' that affect our trajectory through the multiverse. (The book(s) 'The Luck Factor' can give you another glimpse into how to think of cognitive events as forces. Read both books with this title if you can get your hands on them.)
Actually, the question 'Why this universe?' is probably better attacked by breaking it down into two related questions - 'Why this event/experience?' and 'Why now?'. A trajectory model should include dynamics that answer both questions. I suspect that the answers to these two questions may be similar in nature, however our experience of the arrow of time is a much stronger illusion from which to break free. (I still toy with the idea that certain multiple-observer interactions may shed light on an underlying construct that yields some absolute form of time. More on that later.)
I'm still going to aim my writing at a general audience. I suffer from the 'big picture' bias as well, in that I like to have a clear structure upon which to hang my details before I get too caught up in minutiae. I ask you to bear with me for awhile longer. These are some of the notes, if you will, from which a future work may or may not be created.
So if you must falter, be wise."
With this blog, I hope to expand upon things I've written elsewhere, without unnecessarily repeating myself. The questions or topics you find here may fall outside the strict purview of science, but they are a valid part of a larger discussion on the implications of recasting physics into 5 dimensions of experience.
[DISCLAIMER: The thoughts reserved for this blog are those that are the most speculative and philosophical in nature. In order to make analytical or scientific progress, it is often necessary to play with ideas that one ends up rejecting. Don't assume that I'm completely committed to any ideas that you find here. We're trying things on to see what fits.]
I'm prompted to expand the scope of my writing by several 'aaaah-aah' moments that I've had lately. These are moments when I'm forced to either go further into a 5-dimensional model for an explanation, or to retreat and be a good little 4-dimensional girl for awhile. Honestly, sometimes I choose to retreat.
But if I am going to suggest that consciousness can be seen as having a trajectory through what I'm going to call 'the multiverse', then there should be dynamics that explain how I ended up in this universe, confronted by this anomalous synchronicity or event that is catching my attention and/or making me uncomfortable.
[SIDENOTE: I'm not talking about the multiverse in the sense of a set of universes that exist in physical parallel out there; rather, I'm talking about the idea that consciousness is a limited interface with the real, probabilistic, smeared state of the universe. If you review your interpretations of quantum mechanics, you may find ideas that sound similar. My idea goes further... This interface is dynamic, and those dynamics can be analyzed and quantified. (My apologies to those of you who have heard all this before, but I do feel some need to establish a baseline.) I use the multiverse/'pick the universe' analogy because it is easy to understand.]
My background is in cognition and neuroscience, so eventually I hope to be able to model my ideas in terms of cognitive or neurophysiological dynamics. (Then again, I may crack somewhere along the way and abandon science to live in a quasi-religious trance state. I'm just saying...)
The question 'Why this universe?' reflects more than just an ability to identify that what I am faced with is highly improbable according to 4-dimensional dynamics. (People write books about the impact of highly improbable events. I'm actually reading the earlier book 'Fooled By Randomness' at the moment.) It also reflects the desire to understand why I am confronted with something that is uncomfortable. (Happy synchronicities are easier to dismiss or ignore.) If this model is going to work, then the dynamics that underlie the trajectory of conscious experience through the universe of probability must explain why we would be propelled (as it were) to places/events/experiences that are physically or emotionally uncomfortable .
Traditional answers to this question tend to invoke God, karma, and/or the purpose of life. I think it's simpler than that. I think that the ways in which we store and process information correspond to 'forces' that affect our trajectory through the multiverse. (The book(s) 'The Luck Factor' can give you another glimpse into how to think of cognitive events as forces. Read both books with this title if you can get your hands on them.)
Actually, the question 'Why this universe?' is probably better attacked by breaking it down into two related questions - 'Why this event/experience?' and 'Why now?'. A trajectory model should include dynamics that answer both questions. I suspect that the answers to these two questions may be similar in nature, however our experience of the arrow of time is a much stronger illusion from which to break free. (I still toy with the idea that certain multiple-observer interactions may shed light on an underlying construct that yields some absolute form of time. More on that later.)
I'm still going to aim my writing at a general audience. I suffer from the 'big picture' bias as well, in that I like to have a clear structure upon which to hang my details before I get too caught up in minutiae. I ask you to bear with me for awhile longer. These are some of the notes, if you will, from which a future work may or may not be created.
