Conference hydra::dejavu

    I have found a number of sources of new scientific wisdom from a
    number of reputable thinkers. I'd like to offer a few of them to
    the Noters of this Conference:
    
    Synchronicity: F. David Peak, "Synchronicity, the Bridge Between
    Matter and Mind"
    
    Holonomy: Karl Pribram, "Languages of the Brain", David Bohm and
    F. David Peak, "Science, Order and Creativity".
    
    Chaos Theory: James Glieck "Chaos"
    
    All of the Above: John P. Briggs, and F. David Peat, "Looking Glass
    Universe.
    
    Nearly all are available in paperback. Read some of them, reach
    your own conclusions.
    
    Richard

                                       
    Thanks, Topher - very well put.  Now let's see if I got it.  (;^)
    
    It would seem that the 'definition' of the physical is the part we all
    get stuck on (here).  That radio waves couldn't be measured back in the
    cave-dwelling days has nothing to do with the fact that they did or did
    not exist, because obviously the did, and if they had some kind of
    manifestation in the physical world, the cave-dwellers would have
    deemed them to be somehow 'magical' or 'out of the realm of their
    understanding of the physical world as defined at that particular time'.
    
    Is this a reasonable summation of what you said in .0?
    
    Cindy

    I think there is a bridge between mind and matter. I'll have to
    get "Synchronicity" to read. I have observed any number of times
    either myself or my husband feeling (and not stating) anger and
    items falling off counters, pictures off the wall etc. as in
    poltergeist movies or sci-fi stories. In an earlier note a woman
    was describing her sisters "mental illness" as having the possible
    effect of causing a T.V. to topple. Through my own experience
    in working as a counselor with the "mentally ill" I have observed
    the same thing with objects when a person is in a state of rage
    and has to be restrained. There does appear to be a connection.
    
    

   I have a comment or two.  If we experience something with any of our
   five senses, I consider it a physical experience.  This doesn't mean
   (to me) that there isn't something non-physical behind it (ie, 
   syncronicity).  I don't think we can uncover evidence of 'beyond the
   physical' because in our attempts we are limited by our mono-dimensional 
   tendency (stuck in the thrid dimension).  Only when we can move between
   dimensions (this implies I believe there is more beyond the third) will
   we know.  The pair-a-ducks is that by being limited to three-dimensionality 
   in our research, all we achieve are three-dimensional results, or unexplained
   phenomena.

   If you imagine a two-dimensional world with living, breathing beings
   within it it's easy to see how this limitation works.  Suppose they live
   on the surface (plane) of a lake.  I, a 3D entity, walk into the lake
   up to my knees.  The 2D beings near me experience a physical event.
   Two 2D circles moving around (the point where my legs break the surface).
   "What could that be?" says one of them.  In their research to find out 
   what it is, they will never discover me, the 3D entity behind their 2D 
   experience.  Some will argue it is a "beyond the physical event" without
   being able to prove it, while others will argue it is merely a physical 
   event for which there is no current reasonable explanation.  

   Terry

    re: .4 
    
         Terry, well put!
    
    re: .0
    
         Topher, I think that's all fine and very "logical."  At least
    you are open-minded enough to allow thinking about "impossible" 
    events, something not everyone else is.  The problem for me is that
    if I were to believe in only what science has "proven", not only
    would I be severely limiting my existence but I would most likely
    go nuts (alright, *more* nuts  ;-) ) in efforts to figure out who
    is right and who is wrong and who has the latest theory on
    such-and-such.  That may be okay for guys like you with extra
    brain cells, but it overwhelms my cell [ :-) ]  But this is just for
    starters, anyway, and the starter's gun went off for me many years
    ago.  I am now well into my own race, I don't need to stretch or
    get into the blocks now...I no longer anticipate the competition or
    await the countdown to the firing of the starter's gun.  I have left
    the blocks behind in that tremendous energy burst that occurs for
    everyone at that point.  What I am saying is that I am already 
    experiencing the run and am feeling the satisfaction of the machine
    that feels its rhythm and the wind blowing past its ear.  While the
    breathing may get labored at times, the machine is well-oiled and
    can sustain itself well for the duration of its race (i.e., lifespan.)
    To bring it more into actual terms, let me just say that I have 
    experienced enough to *KNOW* that there is something beyond what you
    have described...*I* have felt it; *I* believe it; *I* account to no
    one but myself with this.  I believe that the quantum physics which
    you point to is strongly suggesting a link between the physical and
    that which I have experienced beyond.  I believe that my friend Lazaris
    is correct when he tells us that there is a bridge of belief that we
    must cross (eventually) to get beyond this world of physicality.  I
    believe that the consensus reality has no idea where it is heading and
    I could take no pleasure being led by the "blind."  Most scientists 
    belong to the consensus reality.  However clever they may be they
    are not necessarily visionaries.  They do not necessarily give credence
    to their dreams.  They do not necessarily see any value in being
    a dreamer.  For me it is another reality and it is one towards which
    I am headed.  If I am "wrong", oh well!  I just know that I cannot
    follow logical thought and nothing but logical thought.  I also know
    that I will not follow things because tradition dictates it.  I follow
    myself, using my own race track, picking out cues as I need them or
    adding nourishment or water as I feel a need for replenishment.  
    So, while others can choose their own race and run it as they please,
    this is where you will find me...never in the same place again.
    
    Frederick
       

    Re. .4
    
    The 2D/3D analogy is very well expressed in a book called 'Flatland'
    (by Abbott?)
    
    Brian

    re: .5
    
    Fred:
    
    I like the way you express your adventure. The openess to new
    knowledge, and the willingness to listen to your own rhythms and
    not be totally bound by the limited accumulation of wisdom shown
    by Western Scientists is, to my mind, at least, evidence of the
    acquisition of much wisdom.                    
    
    re: .2
    
    Cindy:
    
    Your summaries are wonderful! I had started to write something similar,
    but accidentally erased it, and didn't want to re-enter the sentences,
    due to my Carpal Tunnel problem. Anyway, it is to be expected that
    anything outside ones own paradigm will be experienced as magical,
    mystical, weird, spritual, etc. The paradox is that it is extremely
    difficult to become aware of a manner of thinking that is not within
    your paradigm. How does one become aware that they are not aware?
    
    The only ways that I know are experiential. The words, sentences,
    concepts found in a book only point, usually rather feebly, at the
    underlying reality. So, one has to risk the loss of familiar conceptual
    boundaries, enter other realities, then look around, experience
    the unfamiliar, absorb the experience, and then, much later, begin
    to place the experience in a new context. This is what has worked
    for me. George Leonard in "The Silent Pulse" suggests some exercises
    which are likely to work for many of you.
    
    Good luck.
    
    Richard

    Topher, thank you.  You have stated something I've been thinking
    very well.  I would be interested in a description of some of your
    evidence for PK & ESP.  (Or pointers, if you already discussed it.)
    
    I hesitate to write in this conference, since I am a skeptic and
    I've been flamed here before.  I'd like to say this, however, that
    skeptics are just as visionary as the next guy -- maybe our visions
    are just different.  And we are, perhaps, less prone to relinquishing
    what we determine to be rational thought in favor of what I might
    describe as blind faith in a fascinating improbability.
    
    One problem that I observe is that I think it is confusing, especially
    for newcomers or "outsiders" (people who don't already believe whatever
    it is that's being discussed) when the whole expression of the concept
    is metaphorical.  There is a lot of jargon in any specialized subject,
    and this conference is no exception (for sure!)  But I have never,
    for example, seen in here a clear, non-metaphorical, understandable
    explanation of "creating your own reality", or a number of other
    things.
    
    It would be helpful (Cindy is pretty good at this) if you could
    state the basic ideas clearly and as simply as possible before
    elaborating in metaphor.  
    
    Topher and Steve are usually good at this, too.  Clarity!  
    
    Thanks!
    
    Sherry (an interested observer and wishful skeptic)

    
    Last night I saw Nova on PBS and it was about Richard Feynman (sp?).
    He was a rather interesting character.
    
    Anyway, he likened the universe to a chess game.  Scientists are in 
    the process of learning the rules of the game.  Then, off in one
    corner, an event occurs that defies the known rules (like Guy writes
    a reply :-) like castling.  The truth of the game is not changed, says
    Feynman, but when the event is studied a deeper understanding is
    reached.  I believe this is analogous to psychic phenomena.
    
    About QM:
    
    Will understanding QM give us the Grand Unification Theory?  Who knows?
    
    I am reminded of "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" where M. Arronax is
    shown the power source of the Nautilus by Captain Nemo (Omen backwards
    :-) and his narrative says something to the effect of "Captain Nemo had
    found the secret of the universe's power".  When I heard that it really
    made me put things in perspective.  We could have thousands of years to
    go before we discover anything close to a G.U.T.
    
    
    Guy

    I'm off to the Parapsychological Association meeting tomorrow morning
    (I'll be back Monday) and I have stuff that needs to be finished up,
    so I'll have to make my replies much briefer than I would like:
    
RE: .2 (Cindy)
    
    Yes that sums up the central point fairly well.  But one thing to keep
    in mind...  Most cultures seem to distinguish the normal/natural from
    the supernatural/paranormal, but there are many things which they
    would disagree with each other about what goes in what.  In particular,
    our culture places many things in the natural category which other
    cultures would place in the supernatural.  In order to do so, we have
    gone through profound changes in what is considered "physical". 
    Newtonians believed in an absolute structural framework to space and
    time, strict mechanical determinism, strict predictability of
    deterministic systems, and the meaninglessness of action at a distance.
    Einstein retained some of these beliefs and discarded others, QM
    discarded still others, and chaotic dynamics eliminates the last.
    These changes in thinking lead to a fundamental change in what is
    considered physical.  Even if your cave-dweller was told about radio
    in great detail, (s)he would still consider it non-physical (unless
    led to radically revise his/her notion of what physical *is*).  Even
    Newton would not recognize our modern dualistic not-a-particle-but-not-
    not-a-particle-either and a-wave-but-not-a-wave-but-certainly-not-a-
    wave-in-anything view of radio as "physical".
    
RE: .4 (Terry)
    
    A scientist in that situation would attempt to describe the situation
    in the simplist possible terms.  If there were *no* phenomena in need
    of explanation they would be unjustified in introducing a 3rd
    dimension.  That doesn't mean there isn't, in some sense, a 3rd
    dimension, but that if it fails to explain anything it is a useless
    concept.  Its like saying that there are little invisible gremlins
    who follow you around whenever you are alone, duck out of sight
    whenever you or anyone else looks, a perfectly quiet, and never move
    anything or otherwise do anything but follow you.  Neither you nor
    I can say that it isn't so, but it doesn't add to our understanding
    at all to believe it.  There are an infinite number of things which
    we can believe if we want, which can neither be proven nor disproven.
    (There may still be reasons for assuming them to be true, but that
    truth is completely private -- it is a different *kind* of truth
    than the shared truth that science and common sense deals in).
    
    If there is some phenomena which *might* be explained by a third
    dimension, than whether or not we take it as true will depend on
    whether it is simpler to assume a 3rd dimension or to assume some
    other explanation.  If the 3rd dimension explanation is the simpler
    by a wide margin, it will be taken as true; if it is a near thing,
    than they will be considered competing hypotheses; if it is much more
    complicated, it will be rejected, perhaps considered, however, as
    an interesting wild hypothesis.
    
    In fact, models of the universe involving many more than 3 spacial
    dimensions are "hot" topics in physics right now.  And many physicists
    believe that theories of the Universe based on more-than-3 spacial
    dimensions can be developed which present a simpler theory for known
    phenomena than the current "standard model" (basically a combination
    of SR, GR, QM, QED, QCD and a bunch of additional assumptions like
    "there is a thing called a muon").  They have not yet shown that this
    is true, however, but the potential is there.
    
    There is a logical "danger" inherent in the Flatland metaphor -- the
    possibility of a subtle false analogy.  It is emotionally *obvious*
    to us that the Flatlander should recognize the "obvious" fact of the
    existence of a 3rd dimension, even on quite minimal evidence.  The
    analogy is that the same level of evidence -- or even no evidence at
    all -- should obviously lead us to conclude the existence of a 4th
    spacial dimension (A. Square fought with his mentor, The Sphere, on
    this very issue, you may remember).
    
    In parapsychology there have been many theories in terms of 4 or more
    spacial dimensions proposed to explain the various phenomena.  Some of
    these are quite interesting and exciting.  Closer examination reveals,
    however, that most of them simply ignore most of the phenomena actually
    observed, and generally are simply restatements of assumptions in
    other terms.  They provide no real explanatory power.  (I think that
    there is a lot of potential, however, in hypothesizing more than a
    scalar time-dimension, and indeed, it is, I think, logically required
    by precognition and retro-PK).
    
RE: .5 (Frederick)
    
    I believe in many things which have not been proven by science, but
    not too firmly.  More importantly, I do not disbelieve many things
    which have not been proven by science.  It doesn't take many brain
    cells but only open-mindedness and a realization of ones falibility.
    
    
    You have experienced things and believe that you therefore *KNOW*
    things.  But you fail to distinguish what you have experienced from
    how you *interpret* what you experienced (very easy to do -- it is
    almost impossible to describe an experience, even to ourselves
    non-verbally except in terms of interpretation; remember all memory
    is based on interpretation).  Interpretation is based on assumptions
    about the world outside and inside which are close-enough-to-the-truth
    most of the time, but are not, in fact always true.  Optical illusions
    and magicians tricks are based on this.  You have had some experiences
    (real experiences without a doubt) which you *interpret* a particular
    way and which leads you to *believe* you "know" something.  In fact
    you believe it rather than know it (actually knowing something is an
    ideal which we all aspire to but only God can accomplish).
    
    There are some ideas in QM which a few knowledgable individuals have
    interpretted in a way vaguely related to the ideas you espouse -- but
    only vaguely.  Some people who understand QM have attempted to
    "popularize" it, and many people who don't understand it at all have
    attempted to "explain" it, in ways that make that vague relation
    seem much more precise and much closer than it in fact is.  If CYOR
    is correct than QM is as completely incorrect as Aristotelian gravity.
    Perhaps Lazaris has assumed that modern physics is closer to the
    truth he knows than in fact they are.
    
    I have never met or heard about a good scientist who was not a
    dreamer and and a visionary (there have been some famous scientists,
    however, who were good technicians rather than good scientists).
    That they do not share *YOUR* dream or *YOUR* vision does not make
    them any the less visionaries.  That they believe do not share your
    opinion that dreams are all that counts, and indeed that they believe
    that a dream that is isolated *lacks* any vision does not make them
    any the less dreamer.
    
RE: .8 (Sherry)
    
    There is lots of room for skeptics here, who don't mind being disagreed
    with.  It takes a lot of care, sometimes, though, to say things in such
    a way that it is clear that while you disagree with others, you respect
    their belief.  We are all somewhat conditioned to interpret
    disagreement as attack, and it is sometimes hard to make clear that
    you are not attaking.  If you fail (as I certainly have, at times)
    then you will get flamed, and you feel bad about having hurt someones
    feelings for a while.
    
    This note is getting *very* long, and I'm running out of time, so
    I'll just point you at note 31 for a list of some fairly technical
    (and detailed) sources of evidence about parapsychological phenomenon.
    I especially recommend "Foundations of Parapsychology".
    
RE: .9 (Guy)
    
    Minor terminological quibble, Guy.  I think that you are talking about
    a T.O.E. (Theory of Everything), rather than a G.U.T.  A G.U.T. is
    any one of a class of QM-based theories which seek to describe the
    strong force and the electro-weak force (they assume the existing,
    well supported, electro-weak theory which unites electromagnetism
    and the weak force) with a single theory.  Since they do not include
    gravity, they are seen as potential steps toward an eventual T.O.E
    rather than being candidates for T.O.E. status themselves.
    
    G.U.T. *assumes* QM, but T.O.E. might only approximate our current
    QM under some circumstances (as GR approximates Newtonian gravitation
    under some circumstances).
    
    						Topher

      
What I believe we are discussing in this and some other notes is 
the scientific measurement of cause/effect relationships that can 
therefore "prove" existence. 
    
The definition of measurement here is registering existance with 
man made instruments or devices.  This presupposes that we have 
developed the measurement tools, never mind that we are aware of 
an existance/idea/entity/process that we even want to measure or 
study.
    
I think this is where the problem arises between Topher and Fred.
    
I think Topher would like to be able to scientifically prove the 
existance of parapsychological phenomina through measurement while 
Fred is comfortable in creating his reality and not requiring 
scientific proof to explain everything.
    
(Pardon any inaccuracies in presenting the problem as I see it from 
Fred and Topher's perspectives - I am trying to use their considerable 
spirits in illustrating - albeit oversimplifying - a point.)
    
The good news is that Topher is helping, by caring about making the 
cause - effect connection in all of these important unknown areas,
while Fred has made the decision to rise above the proof process and 
is a very positive example for all of us.


The issue, it seems, might be that we need to find another paradigm
for gaining acceptance of parapsychological capabilities other than 
blind faith or scientific proof.  

We need to enable ourselves and others to move "ahead" by helping
to create a base of comfort over the fears that we all have about 
leaving our (physical) realities.

John

    Re .11
    
    Good stuff John, well put.
    
    "One of these mornings you're going to wake up dead."
                                   -a jewish wife
    
    L.

There's quite a nice book by A.K.Dewdney about a computer
simulated flatland that comes to life. Can't remember the name
though.

John.

    Re .13
    
    The title is "Planiverse."  I believe it may be available through W. H.
    Freeman, the publisher for Scientific American magazine and the related
    books.  It's been a couple of years since "Planiverse" was on the
    bookstore shelves.
    
    By the way, there is a sequen to Abbott's "Flatland," entitled
    "Sphereland," by Dionys Berger.  Its narrator is A. Hexagon, the
    grandson of A. Square.  In that book, the Sphere returns and we learn
    many entertaining things about the geometry of curved spaces, and about
    social developments in Flatland since the time of A. Square.
    
    Rudy Rucker, a mathematician and math popularizer, has written two or
    three books on four-dimensional geometry, while we're at it.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re: .11 
    
         John, I liked that, too.
    
    re: .2 (Cindy)
    
         Small nit...you say "obviously they had them, too."  Not so
    obvious.  I do not believe reality exists until it is observed
    and if it isn't in the observation, it isn't really there.  (There
    are varying levels of observation, however.)  Since the past 
    exists only in this moment of reality, whether or not it was there
    depends on "our" observation, not "theirs."
    
    
          Yes, a couple of you (Topher and Carole, I believe) caught
    me making a generalization which doesn't necessarily hold.  It is
    not true that just because one adheres to a system there is no
    creativity there...but I do think it is more difficult.  Topher's
    explanation is good, too.  As Ophelia told me last week, it is
    the adolescent within that wishes to see things in black-and-white...
    the adult sees that there are lots of shades of gray.
    
    Frederick
    

re: .10 (Topher)

     I think I followed what you said, but my point is that we (in 3D land)
     have limited our ability to understand things beyond our dimension
     because we continue to use a 3D yard stick.  There are a number of
     theories as you say, but they are being measured with the same stick,
     hence, they will remain theories.  

re: .11 (John)

     That was good.  

     From a cartoon I read, 

	"We should have the highest respect for reality, but we shouldn't
	let it control out lifes."  ;')

re: .14 (Frederick)

     About something not existing until we experience it -  We've all heard
     the question, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear 
     it, does it make a sound?".  How about, "If a tree falls on your house 
     and you're not home, does it make a dent?"  ;')

     BTW, I registered for the next 2-day Laz seminar here in Atlanta    
     (Becomming the Alchemist).  Sent the money in and everything.  I'm
     looking forward to it (9/9-10).

     Terry

    re: .16 (Terry)
    
         Lazaris once asked (asking then answering his own question)
    "Does a tree falling in the woods with no one around make a sound?"
    His answer: "No!"
         (...I don't wish to spark a war with any particular comment on
    that one!  ;-)  )
    
         As for falling on the house, how small may I make the tree?  :-)
    
         Congratulations, I think, for your decision to go to that
    workshop.  That' the last 2-day I attended (last month) and it is
    perhaps the most "secretive" (meaning that the content is not 
    something most of us would share publically...you'll discover why
    while there although I hinted at it in some earlier reply a few
    weeks ago.)  It is a potentially very empowering weekend, too.  And
    like most of his workshops, it'll undoubtably be crammed full of 
    information and fun!  As always, my biggest advice besides saying
    pay attention is "stay awake", especially for the meditations.  For
    it is experiential to the nth degree in those meditations...something
    heavily alluded to in the replies in this topic.  I seriously doubt
    you will have any regrets.  Next week I will be attending a 4-day
    Intensive and have made superficial plans to attend the 4-day in
    Florida the last of October...there just is no end to the pleasure
    I get from him!
    
    Frederick
    

    Topher
    
    As I think about the following text, I realize it seems to trivialize
    the work you and many others are doing, wherein you are examining and
    exposing the tricks our minds play on us, in your search for the
    Truth.  Please don't read it as such;  God knows our minds need to be
    put into their place.  It's rather a reflection of my own struggles to
    come to terms with the paradox you've identified. 
    
    Do I correctly infer from your base note that you're seeking to
    clarify two basic points of view?  The first is, "There's something
    called "Truth" which exists independently of the observer."  The
    second is, "The observer creates his/her own 'Truth'"?  
    
    I'm someone who is seeking to come to terms with both perspectives. I
    have a lot of trouble with the idea that there is no sound in a forest
    unless someone hears the tree fall.  But on the other hand, I look at
    my (admittedly superficial) understanding of quantum mechanics, and I
    wonder. Isn't one of the implications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
    Principal the presumption that one cannot detach the observer from the
    observed? ... that the process of observation changes what's observed? 
    
    Then there's good old Digital, who actively sponsor a course called
    Investment in Excellence.  In that course the teacher gives practical
    steps to what I can only describe as consciously creating one's own
    reality through affirmations. 
    
    I submit that Theory 1 (Truth is Independent) may eventually come to be
    seen as a special case of Theory 2, much like Newtonion Physics can be
    viewed as a special case of Relativity.  In such a proposed synthesis,
    "Truth is Independent" would remain a useful set of everyday assumptions
    because all us humans who aren't schizophrenic or enlightened [or
    both?] have unconsciously agreed on the nature of "reality" and we all
    together work (mostly unconsciously) to make sure we keep up the
    appearances.   In that case, conditions for the special case might be,
    
    "Truth is Independent, provided you're a human on earth and you've
    'bought into the system'".
    
    Regards,
    
    Donald Reinke

    Re: .18

    Perhaps there is room for a different synthesis.

    Once upon a time the physical universe really was just
    that. But with the addition of observers, and in this
    neck of the woods, more 'concious' observers, an element
    of 'choice' is growing. When there were only slime moulds
    on the earth the element of choice was small. Now, there
    are beings with sophisticated conciousness that element
    is larger. We exercise more control on our trip through
    this sea of chaos.

    Perhaps the 'hard reality' view was correct once but 
    now is changing to a 'soft reality'. A reality where
    the observer becomes increasingly more important.

    John D.

    Re:  .8
    
    Sherry,
    
    I think a healthy degree of skepticism is a good quality to have.  If we 
    think we have all the answers and no longer question, that's when death
    (metaphorically speaking) truly occurs.  
    
    I'd be interested in hearing some of your visions - care to share any? 
    
    - Karen