Dr. Jim Carpenter's First Sight theory
- Thread starter Approaching Infinity
- Start date
That's like saying that the music coming out of a radio cannot be reduced to physical function of the radio. Well yeah, of course, but it's clearly an essential part of it. Radio waves exist, but they're just free-floating waves until they are 'transduced' by the physical antenna and other components of the radio.
Yep. That's probably why he ended the passage by stating that his theory is principally concerned with those parts that can't be reduced to the physical functioning of the human body, but can be inferred from the evidence he provides, while leaving it open that research correlating psi with neurophysiological activity would still be valuable. And I'd agree - it'd be nice to have research showing what our 'up-link' really is. Unfortunately that's just not his shtick.
Sound waves, radio waves and radios are all physical phenomena. Mind and meaning are not. In this example, the nonphysical thing is the music itself, i.e. the information/meaning that has been encoded into a physical medium. The radio will transduce noise using the same mechanisms that it uses to transduce music. None of the physical phenomena are essential to the production of the musical information/meaning - they're only essential to receiving and converting physical radio waves regardless of their content. The music itself can't be reduced to the physical phenomena that store, transmit, or convert it. And music presumably can be created non-physically, i.e. in the imagination.
An implication of that Carpenter quote is that you can't compare the brain to a radio when it comes to psi. Radios receive and convert physical signals that may or may not encode non-physical information. Carpenter is saying that parapsychological phenomena seem to involve a direct, non-physical connection (or prehension) with meaningful information. It's a different type of interaction - mental, not physical. (A way the analogy might work would be with something like hearing, where the ears and brain convert sound waves into a form that can be perceived as meaningful.)
Whether or not the brain is an essential part of the equation is an interesting question. On the one hand, brains do seem necessary for the construction of consciousness in some way - at least in a physical form. But non-brained beings also seem to have some degree of intelligence and 'mind', and minds seem to be able to exist without bodies and brains. (And there are accounts of music in the 'higher spheres', to connect with the previous idea - i.e., you don't need a brain to conceive of music and to hear it with your 'mind's ear'.) So I'm not sure of the exact relationship.
I think brains might exist primarily for the purpose of coordinating and synthesizing the various streams of information from the physical world (via the senses), in order to orient in a physical environment. But it's the nonphysical mind that regulates the process and 'receives' the resulting synthesis. Consciousness as we experience it is the direct experience of meaning, as filtered and organized by our physical bodies/brains. Mind is what points the brain in the right direction: what sensations to attend to, which to ignore, what to remember (assuming specific brain states are required for specific memories, which is an open question), what thought to think next, what way to move our bodies, etc. And mind is also what experiences all those things in a holistic synthesis of sensation/feeling/thought. And if the Anatomy of the Soul guys are correct, that synthesis is actually taking place in hyperspace, not in the brain.
As for the pituitary gland, that would be cool to research. Interesting that the Cs say it has something to do with connecting 3D/4D material reality with the spiritual realities. All vertebrates (i.e. 2D/3D) have a pituitary gland, so presumably that would mean there's something special about the 3D and 4D varieties... As Sheldrake and others have shown, even animals are 'psychic', so perhaps that structure of the human brain plays a special role in a particular type of psychic phenomenon - specifically with the higher, spiritual densities as opposed to the 1D-3D world accessed by 'first sight'? How might it do so, and what exactly is going on if that's the case?
If I'm reading correctly, in the first quote they're saying that the pituitary effects, or brings about, a psychic something that extends into 4D. So for humans, it has something to do with an extension into 4D and a connection to the densities above that. Is it analogous to a radio? Or does the pituitary affect the brain in such a way, i.e., produce a specific state perhaps via neurochemicals, that facilitates the connection? As Carpenter points out in his book, various states facilitate psi phenomena: emotions, moods, anxiety, cognitive effort, extraversion, openness. All of those are intimately tied with specific intentions or motivations, e.g., a state of fear will weight fearful stimuli over relatively irrelevant nonsensory information, cognitive effort weights the object of thought, but openness and extraversion can weight reception of meaningful information not directly related to immediate environmental conditions. So is it the pituitary itself, or is it the state produced in the brain by the pituitary that creates a particular state of openness, perhaps?
Last edited:
I imagine it is possible to imagine almost anything...and give some meaning to it.
Session 3 February 1996:
Maybe the pituitary is an essential part of the radio receiver for the higher "universal consciousness". Maybe 4D is higher more in the sense of "closeness to union with The One".
Regarding "physical evidence" of psi, mind, morphogenetic field and the like, Rupert Sheldrake made a good point when he was asked about it: it's a question of how to measure such things and what we mean by "measuring". For example, to measure electromagnetic fields, you use a specific device (some type of receiver) because EM fields induce current/voltage into conductors. So you don't measure "the field", you measure electricity. Because electricity is an effect of the EM field.
In a way, you always measure effects, not the thing itself. So if you do telepathy experiments for example, is there really a difference? You also measure effects. Where to draw the line? When should we consider something "physical" and when not? Perhaps when dealing with living things, especially humans where consciousness is strongly involved, we can only measure things using humans because the effects are on consciousness, not on the physical world? Just like when we talk about, let's say, how a certain idea has influenced society, we "measure" the effect on human consciousness and don't think about it in materialistic terms? Just some thoughts.
ADDED: This wouldn't rule out of course that there could be correlations between psi and brain activity (another effect), such as certain patterns and the like that can be described mathematically. Maybe because mathematics "reaches up" to higher realms?
In a way, you always measure effects, not the thing itself. So if you do telepathy experiments for example, is there really a difference? You also measure effects. Where to draw the line? When should we consider something "physical" and when not? Perhaps when dealing with living things, especially humans where consciousness is strongly involved, we can only measure things using humans because the effects are on consciousness, not on the physical world? Just like when we talk about, let's say, how a certain idea has influenced society, we "measure" the effect on human consciousness and don't think about it in materialistic terms? Just some thoughts.
ADDED: This wouldn't rule out of course that there could be correlations between psi and brain activity (another effect), such as certain patterns and the like that can be described mathematically. Maybe because mathematics "reaches up" to higher realms?
Last edited:
It's been a while since I've read First Sight Theory but I remember thinking at the time that it seemed to sync with some of what Mae Wan Ho was saying in 'Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of Organisms'.
The Amazon Book description doesn't really give much to show how I come to this conclusion:
Briefly, Ho wanted to study an entire living organism under a microscope and due to a set up error she saw a worm fluorescing in rainbow colours. When she studied what it was that was causing the fluorescence, it turned out to be connective tissues, and a closer look at these revealed a liquid crystalline structure. It was found that signals through this structure travelled much faster than through the nervous system. Ho also draws on some of Rupert Sheldrakes material to expand and explain what she was observing.
I wondered at the time whether 'first sight' is a whole body experience, but it's the brain that needs to learn to interpret the signal that's picked up and transferred by the liquid crystalline structure that is much more sensitive to subtle environmental signals. Perhaps a forgotten skill that can be developed.
One excerpt I noted from the book:-
The way I see it is that it is grounded in the world as it is, in truth, in cleaning the machine, in discipline, in loosening up rigidities - physical, emotional and sensory, in an internal awareness that is not naval gazing or self indulgent, in external consideration and awareness of the environment, in not dissociating, in stress management. It's not some pie in the sky speshul phenomena. It just is - but we don't always have access to it. Maybe the different psi variations - clairvoyance, telepathy, clairaudience etc are just the ways that each individual learns to interpret the subtle signals that this liquid crystalline structure detects.
The Amazon Book description doesn't really give much to show how I come to this conclusion:
Briefly, Ho wanted to study an entire living organism under a microscope and due to a set up error she saw a worm fluorescing in rainbow colours. When she studied what it was that was causing the fluorescence, it turned out to be connective tissues, and a closer look at these revealed a liquid crystalline structure. It was found that signals through this structure travelled much faster than through the nervous system. Ho also draws on some of Rupert Sheldrakes material to expand and explain what she was observing.
I wondered at the time whether 'first sight' is a whole body experience, but it's the brain that needs to learn to interpret the signal that's picked up and transferred by the liquid crystalline structure that is much more sensitive to subtle environmental signals. Perhaps a forgotten skill that can be developed.
One excerpt I noted from the book:-
The way I see it is that it is grounded in the world as it is, in truth, in cleaning the machine, in discipline, in loosening up rigidities - physical, emotional and sensory, in an internal awareness that is not naval gazing or self indulgent, in external consideration and awareness of the environment, in not dissociating, in stress management. It's not some pie in the sky speshul phenomena. It just is - but we don't always have access to it. Maybe the different psi variations - clairvoyance, telepathy, clairaudience etc are just the ways that each individual learns to interpret the subtle signals that this liquid crystalline structure detects.
Just a heads up that there are some interesting articles up on SOTT on the topic of idealism (all is mind) vs. physicalism (all is matter):
www.sott.net
www.sott.net
www.sott.net
Ed Kelly is a colleague of Carpenter. I hadn't heard of Kastrup before, but he's got a new book out today that looks fascinating:
If I understand his proposal based on just the few short articles I've read so far, he's arguing that what we perceive as the physical universe is the expression of a universal (cosmic) mind. Each individual mind within that larger mind is like a dissociated part of the larger mind - similar to what happens in MPD/DID. Don't think I've ever thought about it that way, but it's a pretty cool idea. If there are levels within levels, maybe something like that is what's going on with things like soul pools and soul groups? Each individual is like a dissociated part of a larger mind. And those larger minds are themselves parts of an even larger mind.
Information Realism: Why physics is pointing inexorably to mind
In his 2014 book, Our Mathematical Universe, physicist Max Tegmark boldly claims that "protons, atoms, molecules, cells and stars" are all redundant "baggage." Only the mathematical apparatus used to describe the behavior of matter is supposedly...
www.sott.net
Psychedelic brain, or mind? Misreporting and confirmation bias in psychedelic research
A long-awaited resurgence in psychedelic research is now under way and some of its early results have been startling. Whereas most scientists expected the mind-boggling experiences of psychedelic states to correlate with increased brain activity,...
www.sott.net
Can multiple personality disorder help us understand the fundamental nature of reality?
In 2015, doctors in Germany reported the extraordinary case of a woman who suffered from what has traditionally been called "multiple personality disorder" and today is known as "dissociative identity disorder" (DID). The woman exhibited a...
www.sott.net
Ed Kelly is a colleague of Carpenter. I hadn't heard of Kastrup before, but he's got a new book out today that looks fascinating:
If I understand his proposal based on just the few short articles I've read so far, he's arguing that what we perceive as the physical universe is the expression of a universal (cosmic) mind. Each individual mind within that larger mind is like a dissociated part of the larger mind - similar to what happens in MPD/DID. Don't think I've ever thought about it that way, but it's a pretty cool idea. If there are levels within levels, maybe something like that is what's going on with things like soul pools and soul groups? Each individual is like a dissociated part of a larger mind. And those larger minds are themselves parts of an even larger mind.
Quick notes on correlations of psi and brain activity. First, in one of the articles in my previous post - the one on psychedelics - they point out that researchers have gotten very unexpected results: overall reductions in brain activity when the opposite was expected. It's almost as if the less brain you use, the more fluid and far-out your conscious experience is. If I remember correctly, both FWH Myers and William James argued that the brain was actually like a valve for consciousness. The more brain activity, the more restricted your consciousness. The more your brain can ease up, the freer your consciousness is from the limits of physicality. But at the same time, the freer your mind is from the limits of physicality, the less certain your experience will be, thus the hallucinogenic/dreamlike nature of psychedelic experiences.
Second, I've read a bit more in First Sight. In the chapter on psi's relation to fear, he cites some studies that have looked at brain activity. But the results aren't that interesting, IMO, because all they show is that the brain reacts the same way to a nonsensory threat as it does to a sensory threat, activating the same regions. It's always possible there is more going on that they haven't identified yet, because not a lot of brain imaging has been done in relation to psi. But it seems like the brain responds similarly no matter what the source of the information is. For example, feelings prompted by psi will show up the same as feelings prompted by people and experiences in your immediate environment; mental images prompted by psi will show up the same as other mental images; etc.
I wonder if there are similar insights about meditative states. During EE meditation, sometimes there are visual stimuli. I'm sure many could describe similar occurences. There are instances were coherent images of places or objects form in the "mind's eye" and I always wondered whether they were imagination or something else..
I think I remember in the EE thread someone mentioning about 'seeing with eyes closed'. I experienced this once during an EE session. I could quite clearly see the room that I was in in crisp detail and could 'look' at different area's of the room at will in the same crisp detail while my eyes were closed.
Here's one such post by truth seeker:
Seems to me the brain is an essential part of the equation in 3D, otherwise, why do we have a brain that appears to be intricately connected with consciousness/information processsing, again, here in 3D. We can assume that consciousness is not limited to the brain, and that it exists as a non-physical phenomenon, but it certainly involves the brain in 3D, because the manifestations of consciousness involves the brain and its various components. The idea of music, or making up music in our heads, is the same as any other kind of information, and information is, by definition, first and foremost a non-physical 'thing'. Anyone seeking to understand psi in 3D humans would have to look at the physical components or aspects that facilitate psi, because by definition they are involved given that we are 3D beings. At another level of non-physical reality, ideas and information can likely be apprehended in a non-physical way, which may also be the ultimate reality or truth about information and how it is transmitted/received. But, again in 3D, that requires, or at least uses, physical components as part of the process.
This reminds me of the concept of "embodied". Those with a Connection Survival Style (from the book "Healing Developmental Trauma") have a disconnection from their bodies and live "in their minds". They value thinking and logic over feelings and emotions. "These individuals tend to live in the energetic field", "in more ethereal realms". Further, the book says:
In my experience, the above is very true, and I think it relates as to how 3D requires physical components as part of the consciousness/information processing. Being embodied is an essential part of navigating reality in a discerning way, away from traps and siren calls. It is interesting that the more I feel embodied, the truer I feel to the divine within me and around myself. Some people might think that being more psychic makes you less materialistic, but in my experience, being more embodied (as in putting someone in the driver's seat) makes you less materialistic.
Yep, I agree. Examples of brain damage hindering proper functioning of consciousness in very specific ways pretty much seal the deal. But then there are the anomalies like people with almost totally missing brains who seem to function just fine, and the cases like those talked about in the last session where the soul can still direct a body that has already 'died'. I guess those are special cases. The mind doesn't necessarily need the brain in all circumstances, but there is usually a tight correlation between them when functioning normally in a 3D environment.
I think that's very well put. It seems to me that in 3D, one of our main purposes is to experience life as physical beings, and learn what lessons we can in that form. Bodies are useful in that they limit the vastness of the cosmos down into one relatively confined node of experience: the body and whatever falls within the range of the body's senses. We need something to focus on, otherwise the sheer amount of data around us would be overwhelming.
Brains facilitate this by utilizing a vast network of specialized 'information receptors' (e.g., nerves, sense organs) which channel that information to a super complex information processing system (the brain). The brain then sifts through and synthesizes those vast streams of information into what we perceive as the conscious moment: those things in our environment that are most directly relevant to our experience as 3D beings learning lessons in a 3D world. And the brain itself has all kinds of specialized parts for dealing with specific kinds of information: internal processes, visual info, auditory info, balance, bodily equilibrium, etc. This is where Damasio is helpful, despite his Darwinism. All this information is combined into one 'whole' in the manner described by Hicks and Walling.
Where the physical and the mental meet is in the actual conscious experience of this process. The way Griffin puts it, our mind 'prehends' our brain. It actively perceives the final synthesis the brain creates for it. And when the mind makes a choice, it affects the brain in such a way as to put the 'plan' into action. Both Griffin and Carpenter would say that this effect of the mind on the brain is PK. One of the ways (maybe the way) that the mind influences the body is by initiating brain states, which then pass on that information to the body. For example, the mind wants to move a finger, which influences the brain to initiate activity in the motor cortex, which then sends the signal to actually move the finger.
Based on the research so far, the primary things that are known to facilitate psi are mental states: openness, relaxation, outgoingness (in situations involving performance), etc. Those mental states will naturally have physical correlates: the patterns of brain activity associated with them, and the effects of those state on the rest of the body, like heart rate, skin conductance, release of hormones, etc. Same with the things that are known to hinder psi expression: anxiety, cognitive work, etc.
The brain seems to be a two-way channel. It receives information from the body which it channels to the mind, and receives information from the mind that it channels to the rest of the body. Take a couple examples from lab studies. A subliminal threat (e.g., a threatening image flashed too quickly to be consciously perceived) triggers a "threat brain state", which will cause your heart rate to increase a bit, your skin to sweat a bit more, etc. The unconscious mind interprets that information as threatening based on memory: "mean faces are potentially dangerous, prepare yourself for possible danger!" And so the body unconsciously prepares itself. All you are aware of is a slight sense of unease or anxiety.
Now, let's say a threatening person is staring at you, but you can't see them. On an unconscious, non-physical level, your mind is aware of this. It is receiving a vague impression that it recognizes as potentially threatening. This too activates the "threat brain state", but it does so without the influence of the senses.
So basically, it seems to me that brain states can be triggered from 'below' or above'. Just looking at the brain, you won't be able to tell which it is. But that would be an interesting study, e.g., a ganzfeld with brain scans, with the goal of seeing if there is any unusual brain activity with the 'hits' as opposed to the 'misses' - or if the only brain activity you see is activity typically associated with mental imagery.
