Contenteo's Conceptual Model of Consciousness

For general lucid chat - ask questions, share advice, set lucid dream challenges and explore the lucid realm together.
Snaggle
Posts: 590
Joined: 02 Oct 2011 13:08

Re: Contenteo's Conceptual Model of Consciousness

Postby Snaggle » 16 Feb 2012 03:50

Ryan and Lucidinthe sky using your model how do you explain consensus shifting evidence? The move from the consensus that the world was flat to the world being round was made almost entirely because of science, likewise for the move to the theory of continental drift. clearly the world has an existence independent of consensus in my opinion.
"There is only one God and his name is Death.
And there is only one thing we say to death "not today"
- Syrio Forel

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 548
Joined: 07 Aug 2011 19:47
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Contenteo's Conceptual Model of Consciousness

Postby Ryan » 16 Feb 2012 17:35

I don't think our reality is that much consensus.

I think our reality has certain "rules" and these rules govern/governed how the objects in our reality came to be and the form they take.

Just because early people believed the earth was flat, doesn't mean that it actually was flat.

What's consensus about this reality would seem to be the emotional/energy interactions we have with each other on a global scale.
For more information, please visit my website
http://www.unlimitedboundaries.ca/
Or join my forums!
http://www.unlimitedboundaries.ca/forums/

User avatar
lucidinthe sky
Posts: 1135
Joined: 10 Dec 2011 22:37
Location: Sacramento, California

Re: Contenteo's Conceptual Model of Consciousness

Postby lucidinthe sky » 16 Feb 2012 18:56

Snaggle wrote:Ryan and Lucidinthe sky using your model how do you explain consensus shifting evidence? The move from the consensus that the world was flat to the world being round was made almost entirely because of science, likewise for the move to the theory of continental drift. clearly the world has an existence independent of consensus in my opinion.


The advances made in the scientific model of reality are not made by consensus shifting evidence. Consensus occurs, if at all, after evidence is analyzed using the scientific method and then adjusting the model based on the results of experiments, etc. Just because science has produced an incomplete model that desribes the reality frame we live in doesn't mean it's an accurate representation (it still can not model the quantum world on which everything in the universe is based).

Tom Campbell says, "Models are often developed to describe an unknown function, interaction, or process in terms of something more comprehensible. The model itself may closely resemble the reality it describes or merely describe its inputs and outputs. In either case do not confuse the model of reality with reality itself. (emphasis his)

I think consciousness exists outside of the human body, otherwise how do we have OBE? I also think that our reality is a consensus built by conscious entities designed for improvement, development etc. To me that's just as plausible as the incomplete model that science has given us. I'm happy for the science model we have and support it's further development because it helps us survive here as human animals, otherwise we could not experience the reality here which is the most important thing.

No one really understands the nature of our reality completely. It could just as easily be a virtual reality that's made up, it would not be that difficult to fool humans.
Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Morpheus

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3651
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Contenteo's Conceptual Model of Consciousness

Postby Summerlander » 17 Feb 2012 05:37

I think consciousness exists outside of the human body, otherwise how do we have OBE?


I think the human mind is quite capable of concocting any sensation imaginable. Hence, it is possible to dream up an OOBE. I think OOBEs are nothing but lucid dreams and one doesn't really go anywhere. Think about it...you inhabit a dream body that can emulate the physical one. The room and your bed are a dream. If you happen to see your body lying in bed, it is not a physical body, it is also a dream body. Even space and distance in the dream are not actual...merely an imitation. The brain has learned to do this because it already knows what moving through space feels like. When you have an OOBE, you can look at a painting (2D surface) and plunge into it in order to experience the world of the painting in 3D. This is indicative that space there, like everything else is not actual. It is illusory.

On reality, I agree with Snaggle. The universe has set rules. The planets orbit the sun long before we became aware of that. In fact, there is a lot of conflict and disagreement rather than consensus. The universe is physical. It has an existence independent of consciousness. In evolution, there is strong evidence that consciousness was developed rather than the other way around. It is true that without conscious beings, the universe cannot be said to exist but, make no mistake about it, just because that is so doesn't mean that the entire universe would not exist physically if it was devoid of life.

Thomas Campbell provides an interesting view but there are many holes in his theory and certain scientific blunders which make me wonder what kind of a scientist he is. He has also attracted the "right kind" of audience by using the "right kind" of words. I've compiled a collection of links which clearly show Tom's errors and his deceitful use of language. Go on Astral Viewers and search for his name or have a look at David's latest posts. :D
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Peter
Posts: 1951
Joined: 26 May 2011 08:02
Location: New Zealand

Re: Contenteo's Conceptual Model of Consciousness

Postby Peter » 17 Feb 2012 06:28

I think consciousness exists outside of the human body, otherwise how do we have OBE?


We dont know what an OBE is yet and so how can we use it as proof of something if it is the foundation stone and yet we cant explain the what, where and why of it all
Who are you I asked, the reply "dont be silly, we are your daughers" many years before they were born

User avatar
lucidinthe sky
Posts: 1135
Joined: 10 Dec 2011 22:37
Location: Sacramento, California

Re: Contenteo's Conceptual Model of Consciousness

Postby lucidinthe sky » 17 Feb 2012 07:20

Summerlander wrote:
Thomas Campbell provides an interesting view but there are many holes in his theory and certain scientific blunders which make me wonder what kind of a scientist he is.


Interesting, yes. Scientist, maybe. Science, no. I'm very disappointed that in his book he tries to convince the reader that he can prove his OBE experiences in a scientific manner and as far as I can see he never produces any independently verified experimental data. If I could do what he claims, I would bring in the most skeptical scientists there are and demonstrate this. I read a lot of things and pick what makes sense from everything as my map of reality evolves. I do agree with some things he says, although much of it is not his ideas.

Summerlander wrote:The universe is physical. It has an existence independent of consciousness...

just because that is so doesn't mean that the entire universe would not exist physically if it was devoid of life.


I would agree that this is the generally accepted concept, but unfortunately it can't be proven because someone would have to observe it to prove it and only a conscious life form is capable of that. If you want to see some holes in a theory, take a look at what the physics forums say about "string theory" which is not really even theory because it can't predict anything. They say that there are as many models for string theory as there are atoms in the universe. Doesn't mean science won't come up with the answer, but right now we really don't know.

Summerlander wrote: I think the human mind is quite capable of concocting any sensation imaginable. Hence, it is possible to dream up an OOBE. I think OOBEs are nothing but lucid dreams and one doesn't really go anywhere.


O.K. that's fine, but then let's not call it OOBE. Your either outside your body or your not. Can't have it both ways. People seem to like to throw around this term OBE or OOBE, but then say well it's all really imaginary and actually you never leave the body. So why don't just call it an IBE instead. I know that doesn't sound as cool, but it's more realistic.
Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Morpheus

User avatar
Peter
Posts: 1951
Joined: 26 May 2011 08:02
Location: New Zealand

Re: Contenteo's Conceptual Model of Consciousness

Postby Peter » 17 Feb 2012 08:18

So why don't just call it an IBE instead.


Great, now you are getting closer to what I like and that is we dont know and cant know an awful lot of things and all that really matters is getting on with the job of enjoying and exploring the various experiances in spite of what they are or are not
Who are you I asked, the reply "dont be silly, we are your daughers" many years before they were born

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3651
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Contenteo's Conceptual Model of Consciousness

Postby Summerlander » 18 Feb 2012 01:20

Well, the term OOBE is still more accurate because that is exactly what you experience. You experience being out of your body. Note that the term "OOBE" is still a pragmatic one (although certain people have been using it to mean that one really separates from the body).

Note the "E" at the end of the term. It stands for experience. It is an experience where your senses tell you that you are no longer lying in bed or confined to your physical stencil. Even though that is what you experience, it doesn't make it so.

These days I find myself using the term "phase" or "phase state" because that is exactly what it is. The phase is a hybrid state being wakefulness and dreaming (observable in EEG scans). You are awake in a dream world. During this state, there are certain techniques you can use to intensify and prolong the experience. You have to maintain it or else you will find yourself returning to the body so to speak (return to wakefulness) or falling asleep (slipping into non-lucid dreaming).

Anyway, this is my view. On Thomas Campbell. Spot on, lucid. I could go on about him as I have done before about his pseudo-science (particularly in regards to his erroneous claims about the double-slit experiment) but I won't. He cannot provide proof for any of his claims, and what he calls evidence would be destroyed by critics and he knows it. Hence it is convenient for him to use the excuse that they don't understand, they have the "little picture", I have the "big picture". None of his lemmings will dare to oppose him for fear of ridicule. He's got the laymen at his feet and the proper peer pressure in play. A very clever usage of words from Ted Vollers and the usual suspects if you ask me. Very cultish, it has to be said. :twisted:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
lucidinthe sky
Posts: 1135
Joined: 10 Dec 2011 22:37
Location: Sacramento, California

Re: Contenteo's Conceptual Model of Consciousness

Postby lucidinthe sky » 18 Feb 2012 03:31

Summerlander wrote:Well, the term OOBE is still more accurate because that is exactly what you experience. You experience being out of your body. Note that the term "OOBE" is still a pragmatic one (although certain people have been using it to mean that one really separates from the body).

Note the "E" at the end of the term. It stands for experience. It is an experience where your senses tell you that you are no longer lying in bed or confined to your physical stencil. Even though that is what you experience, it doesn't make it so.



Personally, I don't have a problem with people actually claiming to separate from their body since I believe that our consciousness is already separate from our body. I haven't experinced OBE, but that doesn't mean I don't accept it. I also believe that when we die this OBE separation occurs and is permanent. This is a matter of philosphy, not science, and people should keep it that way, unless they are willing to use scientifically accepted methods to show otherwise.

The problem I have is people claiming to be able to interact with the physical world from the so-called "astral plane". Anything is theoretically possible so this might happen rarely, but I seriously doubt there are people who can do this at will. If so there is only anecdotal evidence to support it.

But OBE as you say, remains primarily an experience for the experiencer. My belief is that all reality is experiential anyway, so any experiences are real and need no validation from another observer's perspective.
Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Morpheus

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 548
Joined: 07 Aug 2011 19:47
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Contenteo's Conceptual Model of Consciousness

Postby Ryan » 18 Feb 2012 18:51

lucidinthe sky wrote:Interesting, yes. Scientist, maybe. Science, no. I'm very disappointed that in his book he tries to convince the reader that he can prove his OBE experiences in a scientific manner and as far as I can see he never produces any independently verified experimental data. If I could do what he claims, I would bring in the most skeptical scientists there are and demonstrate this. I read a lot of things and pick what makes sense from everything as my map of reality evolves. I do agree with some things he says, although much of it is not his ideas.

Tom Campbell was part of Robert Monroes original explorer team back in the 70's. They gathered incredible amounts of experimental data regarding the OBE state.

TMI has online a bunch of recordings from those days too. I'll see if I can find the link: http://www.monroeinstitute.org/downloads/category/explorer-series/

The ones labeled "TCA" are Tom Campbell. They're very interesting to listen to.

In any case, what he attempts to do is use science to make his theory seem more plausible. If you continue reading this entire trilogy, you'll find all the derivations he uses to come to his conclusions. You do have to read the entire trilogy though to get the jist of it. He actually does have quite a bit of personal verifications throughout the three books.

The big one he talks about mostly is his "AH HA!" moment... the one he lists early in the book with Dennis Mennerich. I'll allow you to discover it on your own, as it's VERY interesting.
For more information, please visit my website
http://www.unlimitedboundaries.ca/
Or join my forums!
http://www.unlimitedboundaries.ca/forums/


Return to “General Lucid Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest