Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[SteveKlinko]

I have talked about the Inter Mind and the Inter Mind Model in several topics and have received replies wanting to know more about these concepts. I have just reviewed the posting rules and it looks like I should be able to post this because people have asked for it. So, it is time to provide a resource where people can find out more about the concept of the Inter Mind and the Inter Mind Model:

https://TheInterMind.com

I hope this will give the background for the Inter Mind Model that people are looking for. I am looking forward to responding to any questions and comments.

[psyreporter]

The publication on https://theintermind.com is already 10 years old and was last updated on December 29th, 2021.

Did you make profound modifications since the original theory? If so, can you provide information about what was changed and why?

The theory appears to be incomplete in some profound area's and biased with regard questions that it intends to solve.

An example:

1) Neural Activity happens in the Physical Mind (PM)
2) Conscious Experience happens in the Conscious Mind (CM)

How does the Neural Activity of 1 produce the Conscious Experience of 2?

...

I consider this section a Work In Progress. I am going to ask for your feedback at the end of each theory discussion. I will update the theory sections, as appropriate, with viewer comments. Please use the following email: comments@theintermind.com

It is assumed in the question that CM is 'produced' by PM. What if that is not the case? Would your inquiry have an open mind to discover such an answer?

--

The article mentions the following with regard out-of-body experience (non-local consciousness):

I would like to talk a little about Out of Body Experiences. It is doubtful that these Experiences are anything except Dreams and Hallucinations. The people that claim such Experiences say they are not located in their Bodies anymore but yet are Seeing the World as if they were still in their Bodies. They are Seeing images as if there was Physical Light being focused on Physical Retinas and processed by Physical Brains. But yet they say they are Outside of their Bodies. So how is this happening? From the IMM point of view this cannot be happening. The CM has separated from the PM and there is no Connection back to the Physical Visual System anymore.

I just posted a topic about ESP and the evidence for it appears to be pretty strong.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17748 (ESP and non-local consciousness)

Does the Inter Mind theory render ESP impossible? If so, how would you explain away the information in my topic about ESP?

[SteveKlinko]

The publication on https://theintermind.com is already 10 years old and was last updated on December 29th, 2021.

Did you make profound modifications since the original theory? If so, can you provide information about what was changed and why?

The website is a repository for my Thoughts which have Evolved very little over the 10 years. The website, however, has gotten hugely better over the years as a result of the many comments and criticisms that I have received on the various Forums. I have added many more thoughts and what I consider Teaching Aids over the years. I hope that the Wbsite is much more understandable now than it was 10 years ago. And yes, I am continuously finding things to upgrade to make it better.

The theory appears to be incomplete in some profound area's and biased with regard questions that it intends to solve.

An example:

1) Neural Activity happens in the Physical Mind (PM)
2) Conscious Experience happens in the Conscious Mind (CM)

How does the Neural Activity of 1 produce the Conscious Experience of 2?

...

I consider this section a Work In Progress. I am going to ask for your feedback at the end of each theory discussion. I will update the theory sections, as appropriate, with viewer comments. Please use the following email: comments@theintermind.com

It is assumed in the question that CM is 'produced' by PM. What if that is not the case? Would your inquiry have an open mind to discover such an answer?

The use of the word Produce was more for the Physicalists who believe that Consciuos Experience is in the Neurons. It is a lot to read and many people will read bits and pieces of it, so they miss the most important point. I would not only have an open mind about that but that is what I explicitly try to explain. Please see the "Connectism Emphasizes the Connection Perspective" section. The whole Triple Mind model diagram draws out the Conscious Mind as separate from the Physical Mind. See the Inter Mind Model section.

--

The article mentions the following with regard out-of-body experience (non-local consciousness):

I would like to talk a little about Out of Body Experiences. It is doubtful that these Experiences are anything except Dreams and Hallucinations. The people that claim such Experiences say they are not located in their Bodies anymore but yet are Seeing the World as if they were still in their Bodies. They are Seeing images as if there was Physical Light being focused on Physical Retinas and processed by Physical Brains. But yet they say they are Outside of their Bodies. So how is this happening? From the IMM point of view this cannot be happening. The CM has separated from the PM and there is no Connection back to the Physical Visual System anymore.

I just posted a topic about ESP and the evidence for it appears to be pretty strong.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17748 (ESP and non-local consciousness)

Does the Inter Mind theory render ESP impossible? If so, how would you explain away the information in my topic about ESP?

Please see the section on Extra Sensory Perception. It shows the possible paths for ESP using the Inter Mind Model and then it narrows down the list to what I thought were the more probable paths. But yes, there is definitely a possible way for ESP to exist in the Inter Mind Model. By the way, I once posted on an ESP Forum, asking what I thought would be an interesting possibility for ESP Connections and I got no good responses. They had no desire to discuss anything with me since I had never had an ESP experience. They were completely uninterested in mechanisms for ESP. So, I am glad to hear you are interested in mechanisms for ESP. I will look forward to reading your article

[psyreporter]

I call the missing processing stage, the Inter Mind, because it is an Interconnecting stage of Mind between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind. Note that Physical Mind means the Brain here.

What about the fact that there are people that manage to live a normal life with merely 5-10% brain tissue?

The following book review may be of interest. It indicates that consciousness may originate from the body as a whole.

(2021) Book: “Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds Conscious” by neuroscience philosophy professor Antonio Damasio
Consciousness is not just about what happens in our minds; it’s about what happens in our bodies, and what happens when our minds interpret our bodies and feelings and reflect their processes back to us.
https://undark.org/2021/12/03/book-revi ... g-knowing/

If senses are primary, can PM as it is perceived in the Inter Mind theory be possible?

The professor mentions the following:

He marvels at how feelings probably began as a “timid conversation” between the chemistry and nervous system of a being, then evolved to shepherd us in the right direction during the “uphill battle” of staying alive.

This consideration makes the assumption that chemistry provided a sort of 'spark' that was then further enhanced in the form of an 'uphill battle' of staying alive, thus, that life in its actuality is a chemical process that originates from a start in time.

At question would be whether such an idea is plausible. Can feelings/senses originate from chemistry? Is there at least one clue or indication that that can be so?

By simple logic, senses cannot originate from the scope of the individual which would imply that life in it's actuality cannot be an independent chemical process.

Senses require 'value equation' (valuing) and the origin of such cannot be value by the simple logical truth that something cannot be the origin of itself. Therefor, the origin of valuing must lay outside the scope of value (physical reality) and further logic will show that the origin of valuing must be 'good per se' or 'pure meaning'.

The origin of value is necessarily meaningful but cannot be value and thus is to be considered pure meaning. The nature of value implies that it can be denoted to be 'good per se' (good that cannot be valued).

Since we can Speculate that the distance between CMs is irrelevant in CSp, this might be how we will eventually communicate with Beings that have CMs on other Worlds across the Universe.

That would be very interesting. What information might it unlock? Could ESP help with planet hunting and unlock information about a location of advanced civilizations?

At question is however, is the assumed 'non-locality' aspect of ESP experience on Earth non-local on a Galactic scale, or merely on a semi-non-local scale bound to the Solar system?

For example, until today, people in general are not aware that they and Earth as a whole are submerged in a Solar-Neutrino energy environment at all times, including after sunset.

Solar-neutrino bathing of Earth

Solar-Neutrino biological cell interaction may provide a physical link to the origin of existence which would essentially mean that the origin of life (and consciousness as manifestation) is a form of star light/energy and if that were to be the case, ESP may be possible due to this Solar-Neutrino energy environment.

On Earth's region around the Sun, it is estimated that 10 trillion neutrinos travel through every square centimeter of space per second. This includes underground, on the dark side of Earth and in the center of the Earth.

Most neutrinos originate from the Sun with the whole of Earth bathing in a continuous stream of neutrino energy. Some neutrinos originate from outer space. For example, in a Supernova explosion, 99% of energy is released into the Universe in the form of neutrinos.

Neutrinos can change their mass up to 3000x in size, by themselves, which is called flavor switching or morphing. It is why the particle is called a ‘ghost particle’ (spooky particle).

When Solar-neutrino energy is the origin of life on Earth, life could be bound to a region around a star. This could help explain why the Universe is not crowded with alien activity.

[psyreporter]

The website is a repository for my Thoughts which have Evolved very little over the 10 years. The website, however, has gotten hugely better over the years as a result of the many comments and criticisms that I have received on the various Forums. I have added many more thoughts and what I consider Teaching Aids over the years. I hope that the Wbsite is much more understandable now than it was 10 years ago. And yes, I am continuously finding things to upgrade to make it better.

I find it very interesting, especially the short and powerful examination of each individual consciousness theory from the perspective of compatibility with the Inter Mind theory.

The following theories are addressed:

• Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR)
• Integrated Information Theory (IIT)
• Information Closure Theory (ICT)
• Global Workspace Theory (GWT)
• Predictive Coding Theory (PCT)
• Physicalism
• Panpsychism
• Emergence and Epiphenomenalism
• Eliminativism and Illusionism
• Idealism and Conscious Realism
• Quantum Consciousness and Holographic Brain Theory
• Simulation Hypothesis

https://theintermind.com/#CurrentTheories

I noted the following regarding idealism:

I believe that the ancient Idealists realized our Conscious Experiences are separate from the Physical World but they made the mistake of thinking, that since Experiences were separate, the Physical World did not really exist. Idealism proposes this Incoherent and backwards causality of Consciousness creating the Physical World because their Science was not at a sophisticated enough level to properly explain the Physical World. It is inexplicable how a more modern Philosophy like Conscious Realism can promote the same backwards causality. Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around. Please, someone show me how Conscious Experience creates a Physical World?

This is not plausible. Can science explain the Physical World? If so, what would be the theory?

As far as it is known to me, it cannot be said that it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from PM to CM (i.e. that objective reality or Physical World is ultimate and 'real'). Also, by saying this, you would advocate on behalf of a physicalist view on consciousness.

By simple logic, the begin of a pattern - the aspect that is fundamentally required to make a Physical World possible - is introduced by an observer (perception). On a fundamental level a pattern is signified by perception. Perception is primary because it represents 'meaning' that must underlay a pattern for it to be possible.

The above logic would imply that consciousness (CSp in the Inter Mind theory) must precede PSp and that the origin of CM is the same as the origin of PSp. (CSp being the origin of both CM and PSp).

Would the Inter Mind theory support such a concept?

Recent scientific evidence suggests that consciousness or mind precedes physical reality.

(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers

(2021) In Quantum Physics, “Reality” Really Is What We Choose To Observe
Interview of idealist philosopher of science and physicist Bruce Gordon on how the quantum physics that underlies our universe makes much more sense if we have a non-materialist view of reality.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/04/in-quant ... o-observe/

The use of the word Produce was more for the Physicalists who believe that Consciuos Experience is in the Neurons. It is a lot to read and many people will read bits and pieces of it, so they miss the most important point. I would not only have an open mind about that but that is what I explicitly try to explain. Please see the "Connectism Emphasizes the Connection Perspective" section. The whole Triple Mind model diagram draws out the Conscious Mind as separate from the Physical Mind. See the Inter Mind Model section.

My apologies. I now understand that it was an example that concerned an individual physicalist theory to indicate how further theories were to be handled.

Please see the section on Extra Sensory Perception. It shows the possible paths for ESP using the Inter Mind Model and then it narrows down the list to what I thought were the more probable paths. But yes, there is definitely a possible way for ESP to exist in the Inter Mind Model. By the way, I once posted on an ESP Forum, asking what I thought would be an interesting possibility for ESP Connections and I got no good responses. They had no desire to discuss anything with me since I had never had an ESP experience. They were completely uninterested in mechanisms for ESP. So, I am glad to hear you are interested in mechanisms for ESP. I will look forward to reading your article

As it appears, the only options that are left open for consideration all originate from IM?

Direct IM to IM, IM to PM, and IM to CM, ESP communications must be left open as possibilities pending a better understanding of what Consciousness and the IM are.
https://theintermind.com/#_Toc337459237

The theory mentioned the following with regard the origin of the concept Conscious Space (CSp):

This CM Phenomenon does not seem to exist in Physical Space (PSp), so it is therefore logical to propose that there is a place where the CM exists, and call it Conscious Space (CSp). We can only Speculate about the existence of CSp because of the existence of the CM. Beyond that realization it is not known What CSp could be. But Conscious Space is not as vague as you might think when you consider it from the point of view of being the place where Conscious Experiences happen. This place should be very familiar and understandable to anyone that has ever had a Conscious Experience. So, in a way we already know What CSp is. We are just unable put it into any kind of PSp context.

https://theintermind.com/#WhatIsConsciousSpace

What would be the basis to assume that CSp is a product of PSp and that idealism is invalid?

With CSp being primary and the origin of PSp, would there be new options to explain ESP?

[SteveKlinko]

I call the missing processing stage, the Inter Mind, because it is an Interconnecting stage of Mind between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind. Note that Physical Mind means the Brain here.

What about the fact that there are people that manage to live a normal life with merely 5-10% brain tissue?

The following book review may be of interest. It indicates that consciousness may originate from the body as a whole.

(2021) Book: “Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds Conscious” by neuroscience philosophy professor Antonio Damasio
Consciousness is not just about what happens in our minds; it’s about what happens in our bodies, and what happens when our minds interpret our bodies and feelings and reflect their processes back to us.
https://undark.org/2021/12/03/book-revi ... g-knowing/

As long as the important parts of Sensory Cortex are mostly intact then the Connection to the Brain will be mostly unnoticed by the patient. What is the case? Has the Sensory Cortex also shrunk? Important parts of the Sensory Cortex being: Visual Cortex, Auditory Cortex, Motion Areas.

If senses are primary, can PM as it is perceived in the Inter Mind theory be possible?
The Inter Mind must Exist, because the functionality that it performs must Exist somewhere, somehow.

The professor mentions the following:

He marvels at how feelings probably began as a “timid conversation” between the chemistry and nervous system of a being, then evolved to shepherd us in the right direction during the “uphill battle” of staying alive.

This consideration makes the assumption that chemistry provided a sort of 'spark' that was then further enhanced in the form of an 'uphill battle' of staying alive, thus, that life in its actuality is a chemical process that originates from a start in time.

At question would be whether such an idea is plausible. Can feelings/senses originate from chemistry? Is there at least one clue or indication that that can be so?

By simple logic, senses cannot originate from the scope of the individual which would imply that life in it's actuality cannot be an independent chemical process.

Senses require 'value equation' (valuing) and the origin of such cannot be value by the simple logical truth that something cannot be the origin of itself. Therefor, the origin of valuing must lay outside the scope of value (physical reality) and further logic will show that the origin of valuing must be 'good per se' or 'pure meaning'.

The origin of value is necessarily meaningful but cannot be value and thus is to be considered pure meaning. The nature of value implies that it can be denoted to be 'good per se' (good that cannot be valued).

With the Zero Explanation that Science provides at this point in time any and all Speculation must remain on the table and anything could ultimately be found to be true.

Since we can Speculate that the distance between CMs is irrelevant in CSp, this might be how we will eventually communicate with Beings that have CMs on other Worlds across the Universe.

That would be very interesting. What information might it unlock? Could ESP help with planet hunting and unlock information about a location of advanced civilizations?

At question is however, is the assumed 'non-locality' aspect of ESP experience on Earth non-local on a Galactic scale, or merely on a semi-non-local scale bound to the Solar system?

For example, until today, people in general are not aware that they and Earth as a whole are submerged in a Solar-Neutrino energy environment at all times, including after sunset.

Solar-neutrino bathing of Earth

Solar-Neutrino biological cell interaction may provide a physical link to the origin of existence which would essentially mean that the origin of life (and consciousness as manifestation) is a form of star light/energy and if that were to be the case, ESP may be possible due to this Solar-Neutrino energy environment.

On Earth's region around the Sun, it is estimated that 10 trillion neutrinos travel through every square centimeter of space per second. This includes underground, on the dark side of Earth and in the center of the Earth.

Most neutrinos originate from the Sun with the whole of Earth bathing in a continuous stream of neutrino energy. Some neutrinos originate from outer space. For example, in a Supernova explosion, 99% of energy is released into the Universe in the form of neutrinos.

Neutrinos can change their mass up to 3000x in size, by themselves, which is called flavor switching or morphing. It is why the particle is called a ‘ghost particle’ (spooky particle).

When Solar-neutrino energy is the origin of life on Earth, life could be bound to a region around a star. This could help explain why the Universe is not crowded with alien activity.

I tend to think that the Nonlocality is Universal. But this like everything else is a Speculation that must be shown to be true someday.

The Inter Mind Model is not a Theory about what Conscious Experience is, but rather it is a Model that any theory of Conscious Experience must satisfy. There must be some Processing stage like the Inter Mind that takes the Neural Activity as Input and produces the Conscious Experience as Output, for the Conscious Mind. The Inter Mind might Exist all in the Physical Mind or all in the Conscious Mind, or more likely it will Exist partly in the PM and partly in the CM.

Connectism is also not a Theory about what Conscious Experience is, but rather it is a Perspective change from the Physicalist mandate that Conscious Experience "Is In The Neurons". Connectism proposes that Conscious Experience happens in a separate place from where the Neurons are. It says Conscious Experience is in Conscious Space. All I know about Conscious Space is that it is where my Conscious Mind is and where my Conscious Experiences happen. Since I have recognized this separate Conscious Space, it opens the door to all kinds of further Speculations: Maybe the Consciuos Mind will not go away after the Physical Mind goes away because the Conscious Mind was never in Physical Space in the first place. It was always in Conscious Space. Since the Conscious Mind has its own Dimensionless and Timeless place to Exist in, we can only Speculate what Pure Conscious Existance will be like after we disconnect from the Sensory apparatus of the Body. It will probably be a birth into a whole new kind of Existence. Now since we can Speculate that Conscious Space is Dimensionless and Timeless it opens up the door to things like Nonlocality and Communication with distance worlds without the limitations of a Physical Space, like the Speed of Light.

The real point of all this is that Physicalist Science has proved to be an Embarrassment when it comes to Explaining Conscious Experience. They Believe that Conscious Experience is in the Neurons and have Zero Explanation for how that could be true. But Conscious Experience defies all attempts to push it into the Neurons. The Conscious Visual Experience, for example, will always just float there embedded in the front of our faces and away from the Neural Activity. Science is Silent and Dumbfounded about this simple and obvious Visual Experience that we See. I have suggested that Science needs a change of Perspective, if they will ever understand the Visual Experience.

[SteveKlinko]

The website is a repository for my Thoughts which have Evolved very little over the 10 years. The website, however, has gotten hugely better over the years as a result of the many comments and criticisms that I have received on the various Forums. I have added many more thoughts and what I consider Teaching Aids over the years. I hope that the Wbsite is much more understandable now than it was 10 years ago. And yes, I am continuously finding things to upgrade to make it better.

I find it very interesting, especially the short and powerful examination of each individual consciousness theory from the perspective of compatibility with the Inter Mind theory.

The following theories are addressed:

• Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR)
• Integrated Information Theory (IIT)
• Information Closure Theory (ICT)
• Global Workspace Theory (GWT)
• Predictive Coding Theory (PCT)
• Physicalism
• Panpsychism
• Emergence and Epiphenomenalism
• Eliminativism and Illusionism
• Idealism and Conscious Realism
• Quantum Consciousness and Holographic Brain Theory
• Simulation Hypothesis

https://theintermind.com/#CurrentTheories

I noted the following regarding idealism:

I believe that the ancient Idealists realized our Conscious Experiences are separate from the Physical World but they made the mistake of thinking, that since Experiences were separate, the Physical World did not really exist. Idealism proposes this Incoherent and backwards causality of Consciousness creating the Physical World because their Science was not at a sophisticated enough level to properly explain the Physical World. It is inexplicable how a more modern Philosophy like Conscious Realism can promote the same backwards causality. Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around. Please, someone show me how Conscious Experience creates a Physical World?

This is not plausible. Can science explain the Physical World? If so, what would be the theory?

As far as it is known to me, it cannot be said that it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from PM to CM (i.e. that objective reality or Physical World is ultimate and 'real'). Also, by saying this, you would advocate on behalf of a physicalist view on consciousness.

I study the Visual Experience from the point of view of a Systems Engineer looking at the Signal Processing stages of the Human Visual System. There most certainly is a progression of Processing that starts at the Retina and down the Optic Nerve to the Visual Cortex and further areas. But the Explanation hits a Brick Wall at the Neural Processing of the Cortex. All we know is that Neural Activity happens in the PM and then a Conscious Visual Experience happens in the CM. There is seemingly a PM to CM causality. But in reality it is only a Correlation. The Connectist Perspective says the CM is Connected to the PM and that the CM does not inhabit the PM, even as some effect of the Neural Activity. The IM will monitor the PM and convert the Mechanistic Neural Activity into Conscious Experience that the CM can Process.

By simple logic, the begin of a pattern - the aspect that is fundamentally required to make a Physical World possible - is introduced by an observer (perception). On a fundamental level a pattern is signified by perception. Perception is primary because it represents 'meaning' that must underlay a pattern for it to be possible.

The above logic would imply that consciousness (CSp in the Inter Mind theory) must precede PSp and that the origin of CM is the same as the origin of PSp. (CSp being the origin of both CM and PSp).

Would the Inter Mind theory support such a concept?

What you are saying could be true. I don't study Origins but PSp being created by CSp is a possibility and in fact I go so far on the website as to Speculate:

Since Science is unable to say what Consciousness is we can and should speculate what it could be and how it could have developed. We can, for example, speculate that Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang. The Universe might have been created by Consciousness and for Consciousness. We can also speculate that the ultimate goal of Physical Evolution is to provide a better and better host for Consciousness development. We can speculate that maybe the very Existence of the Physical Universe is pointless without Consciousness. Maybe the Physical Body is just some sort of incubator for the Conscious Mind (CM) and the Conscious Mind (CM) is the more important part. Maybe the Physical Mind (PM) creates a Connection to Conscious Space (CSp) in order to create a CM in that CSp. The CM would then strictly exist only in that CSp. All speculations are still on the table. Remember that the only thing we know about the Physical Universe is through our Conscious Experiences. Conscious Experiences are Primary to what we are.

Recent scientific evidence suggests that consciousness or mind precedes physical reality.

(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers

(2021) In Quantum Physics, “Reality” Really Is What We Choose To Observe
Interview of idealist philosopher of science and physicist Bruce Gordon on how the quantum physics that underlies our universe makes much more sense if we have a non-materialist view of reality.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/04/in-quant ... o-observe/

There has always been a thought that QM is interlinked with some sort of Consciousness aspect. This is highly controversial and there are vast amounts of Hyped up Rhetoric with QM and Consciousness. But anything is possible. We will just have to wait for some better understanding of the whole Consciousness thing.

The use of the word Produce was more for the Physicalists who believe that Consciuos Experience is in the Neurons. It is a lot to read and many people will read bits and pieces of it, so they miss the most important point. I would not only have an open mind about that but that is what I explicitly try to explain. Please see the "Connectism Emphasizes the Connection Perspective" section. The whole Triple Mind model diagram draws out the Conscious Mind as separate from the Physical Mind. See the Inter Mind Model section.

My apologies. I now understand that it was an example that concerned an individual physicalist theory to indicate how further theories were to be handled.

Please see the section on Extra Sensory Perception. It shows the possible paths for ESP using the Inter Mind Model and then it narrows down the list to what I thought were the more probable paths. But yes, there is definitely a possible way for ESP to exist in the Inter Mind Model. By the way, I once posted on an ESP Forum, asking what I thought would be an interesting possibility for ESP Connections and I got no good responses. They had no desire to discuss anything with me since I had never had an ESP experience. They were completely uninterested in mechanisms for ESP. So, I am glad to hear you are interested in mechanisms for ESP. I will look forward to reading your article

As it appears, the only options that are left open for consideration all originate from IM?

Direct IM to IM, IM to PM, and IM to CM, ESP communications must be left open as possibilities pending a better understanding of what Consciousness and the IM are.
https://theintermind.com/#_Toc337459237

That was just my opinion. Any other Connection in the diagram is a possibility if it can be shown how it would work.

The theory mentioned the following with regard the origin of the concept Conscious Space (CSp):

This CM Phenomenon does not seem to exist in Physical Space (PSp), so it is therefore logical to propose that there is a place where the CM exists, and call it Conscious Space (CSp). We can only Speculate about the existence of CSp because of the existence of the CM. Beyond that realization it is not known What CSp could be. But Conscious Space is not as vague as you might think when you consider it from the point of view of being the place where Conscious Experiences happen. This place should be very familiar and understandable to anyone that has ever had a Conscious Experience. So, in a way we already know What CSp is. We are just unable put it into any kind of PSp context.

https://theintermind.com/#WhatIsConsciousSpace

What would be the basis to assume that CSp is a product of PSp and that idealism is invalid?

With CSp being primary and the origin of PSp, would there be new options to explain ESP?

First you would need to have some kind of Explanation for how PSp is a production of CSp. But then after CSp has created the PSp we then have the two separate Spaces and the Inter Mind will apply. I don't see any new Connection options arising from this Origin because after the creation the IMM will be the same. But that's still a lot of Connection choices.

[psyreporter]

I study the Visual Experience from the point of view of a Systems Engineer looking at the Signal Processing stages of the Human Visual System. There most certainly is a progression of Processing that starts at the Retina and down the Optic Nerve to the Visual Cortex and further areas. But the Explanation hits a Brick Wall at the Neural Processing of the Cortex. All we know is that Neural Activity happens in the PM and then a Conscious Visual Experience happens in the CM. There is seemingly a PM to CM causality. But in reality it is only a Correlation. The Connectist Perspective says the CM is Connected to the PM and that the CM does not inhabit the PM, even as some effect of the Neural Activity. The IM will monitor the PM and convert the Mechanistic Neural Activity into Conscious Experience that the CM can Process.

In that observation an error is made. The physical process that is observed - "Retina and down the Optic Nerve to the Visual Cortex and further areas" - originates from sensing.

Is there at least one clue that the origin of sensing is physical (i.e. that it originates in PM)?

What you are saying could be true. I don't study Origins but PSp being created by CSp is a possibility and in fact I go so far on the website as to Speculate: ...

Your reasoning on idealism philosophy would contradict those idea's, right?

"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."

What is the basis for the idea that it is 'clear'?

First you would need to have some kind of Explanation for how PSp is a production of CSp. But then after CSp has created the PSp we then have the two separate Spaces and the Inter Mind will apply. I don't see any new Connection options arising from this Origin because after the creation the IMM will be the same. But that's still a lot of Connection choices.

When PSp originates from CSp, then, at question would be whether you can consider both in the form of 'things' that can be counted. CSp is to be considered of a non-local nature or else it would be physical.

Therefore, speaking of 'separate Spaces' or the idea that PSp is 'real' to enable contrast with CSp may not be applicable. The idea 'created' (as in retro-perspectively so) when it concerns physical reality may be invalid and that would mean that idealism philosophy may be applicable.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

[SteveKlinko]

I study the Visual Experience from the point of view of a Systems Engineer looking at the Signal Processing stages of the Human Visual System. There most certainly is a progression of Processing that starts at the Retina and down the Optic Nerve to the Visual Cortex and further areas. But the Explanation hits a Brick Wall at the Neural Processing of the Cortex. All we know is that Neural Activity happens in the PM and then a Conscious Visual Experience happens in the CM. There is seemingly a PM to CM causality. But in reality it is only a Correlation. The Connectist Perspective says the CM is Connected to the PM and that the CM does not inhabit the PM, even as some effect of the Neural Activity. The IM will monitor the PM and convert the Mechanistic Neural Activity into Conscious Experience that the CM can Process.

In that observation an error is made. The physical process that is observed - "Retina and down the Optic Nerve to the Visual Cortex and further areas" - originates from sensing.

Is there at least one clue that the origin of sensing is physical (i.e. that it originates in PM)?

I thought I was describing the Sensing Mechanism. What do you mean by Sensing?

What you are saying could be true. I don't study Origins but PSp being created by CSp is a possibility and in fact I go so far on the website as to Speculate: ...

Your reasoning on idealism philosophy would contradict those idea's, right?

No, because the Ideas are suggesting that Consciousness (whatever that is) may create the Physical World at the time of the Big Bang, but after the Physical World is created it is Physical World, as real as Science describes it. There would still be a PM connected to an IM which is Connected to a CM.

"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."

What is the basis for the idea that it is 'clear'?

Read any good books on Electromagnetic Theory, Eye Physiology, and Brain Physiology. It is Clear. My journey into How We See forced me to take some time and get familiar with the basic concepts. If you are familiar with these topics then it is your task to show me why all that Knowledge is not true.

First you would need to have some kind of Explanation for how PSp is a production of CSp. But then after CSp has created the PSp we then have the two separate Spaces and the Inter Mind will apply. I don't see any new Connection options arising from this Origin because after the creation the IMM will be the same. But that's still a lot of Connection choices.

When PSp originates from CSp, then, at question would be whether you can consider both in the form of 'things' that can be counted. CSp is to be considered of a non-local nature or else it would be physical.

Therefore, speaking of 'separate Spaces' or the idea that PSp is 'real' to enable contrast with CSp may not be applicable. The idea 'created' (as in retro-perspectively so) when it concerns physical reality may be invalid and that would mean that idealism philosophy may be applicable.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

Maybe, Maybe, Maybe. You have a big job ahead of you if you are going to Explain the Backward Causality of Idealism. With the Backward Causality of Idealism you have to believe that the Redness Experience in the CM causes the Neural Activity in the PM which causes Neural Signals to flow backward down the Optic Nerve from the Visual Cortex to the Retina, and for ultimate Absurdity, for Light to go shooting out of our Eyes and out to the Scene we are looking at. That is what I understand Idealism to propose. It actually can't be that ridiculous, so please Explain what your Causality Sequence would look like with your interpretation of Idealism?

[Atla]

"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."

Read any good books on Electromagnetic Theory, Eye Physiology, and Brain Physiology. It is Clear. My journey into How We See forced me to take some time and get familiar with the basic concepts. If you are familiar with these topics then it is your task to show me why all that Knowledge is not true.

Perception roughly has an external world -> eyes -> optic nerves -> visual cortex -> other brain regions causality trajectory, but how/why would that translate to a PW -> CW causality trajectory?

[SteveKlinko]

"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."

Read any good books on Electromagnetic Theory, Eye Physiology, and Brain Physiology. It is Clear. My journey into How We See forced me to take some time and get familiar with the basic concepts. If you are familiar with these topics then it is your task to show me why all that Knowledge is not true.

Perception roughly has an external world -> eyes -> optic nerves -> visual cortex -> other brain regions causality trajectory, but how/why would that translate to a PW -> CW causality trajectory?

So, where in the chain do you put Conscious Experience? For me it is a further Processing Stage that comes after the Visual Cortex and maybe other Brain regions.

[Atla]

"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."

Read any good books on Electromagnetic Theory, Eye Physiology, and Brain Physiology. It is Clear. My journey into How We See forced me to take some time and get familiar with the basic concepts. If you are familiar with these topics then it is your task to show me why all that Knowledge is not true.

Perception roughly has an external world -> eyes -> optic nerves -> visual cortex -> other brain regions causality trajectory, but how/why would that translate to a PW -> CW causality trajectory?

So, where in the chain do you put Conscious Experience? For me it is a further Processing Stage that comes after the Visual Cortex and maybe other Brain regions.

Since the CW is probably one and the same as the PW, it's probably nonsensical to put them on a chain.

[psyreporter]

What about the fact that there are people that manage to live a normal life with merely 5-10% brain tissue?

As long as the important parts of Sensory Cortex are mostly intact then the Connection to the Brain will be mostly unnoticed by the patient. What is the case? Has the Sensory Cortex also shrunk? Important parts of the Sensory Cortex being: Visual Cortex, Auditory Cortex, Motion Areas.

A study in 2008 showed that when vision is lost, the brain can rewire itself completely and the part that would previously perform as 'Visual Cortex' would do other tasks completely unrelated to processing vision.

Scientists unmask brain's hidden potential
New findings explain how the brain compensates for vision loss; suggests much more versatility than previously recognized.

"The brain's ability to reorganize itself is much greater than previously believed," explains senior author Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, Director of the Berenson-Allen Center and Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School (HMS). "In our studies [in which a group of sighted study subjects were blindfolded for five days], we have shown that even in an adult, the normally developed visual system quickly becomes engaged to process touch in response to complete loss of sight. The speed and dynamic nature of the changes we observed suggest that rather than establishing new nerve connections – which would take a long time – the visual cortex is unveiling abilities that are normally concealed when sight is intact."
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/906527

How could this be explained when as you indicate, 'Visual Sense' originates from something that is 'physical' (the Visual Cortex being the 'origin' or provider of a 'causality trajectory')?

With regard the people with merely 5% brain tissue to have an intact Visual Cortex. It may be interesting to investigate such cases to discover whether that is so.

A mathematics student with an IQ of 126 had merely 5% brain tissue. Professor John Lorber who investigated the case, has investigated over 600 similar cases.

Dr Lorber systematically studied hydrocephalus and documented over 600 scans of people with this condition. He divided them into four groups: people with nearly normal brains; those with between 50 per cent and 70 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 70 per cent to 90 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 95 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid. The latter group constituted less than 10 per cent of the study and half of these people were profoundly mentally disabled. However, the other half had IQs over 100.

"I can't say whether the mathematics student with an IQ of 126 had a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear it is nowhere near the normal 1.5kg and much of the brain he does have is in the more primitive deep structures that are relatively spared in hydrochephalus".

Remarkable story of maths genius who had almost no brain
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarka ... -1.1026845

The real point of all this is that Physicalist Science has proved to be an Embarrassment when it comes to Explaining Conscious Experience. They Believe that Conscious Experience is in the Neurons and have Zero Explanation for how that could be true. But Conscious Experience defies all attempts to push it into the Neurons. The Conscious Visual Experience, for example, will always just float there embedded in the front of our faces and away from the Neural Activity. Science is Silent and Dumbfounded about this simple and obvious Visual Experience that we See. I have suggested that Science needs a change of Perspective, if they will ever understand the Visual Experience.

When it concerns sensing to be primary, wouldn't you agree that the same can be said with regard Visual Experience (Visual Cortex and the causality trajectory of which you argue that it is 'clear' that clear that it precedes conscious experience) and that before such a physical process is possible, the act of sensing (which involves value equation!) must have taken place beforehand?

"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."

[Atla]

The latter group constituted less than 10 per cent of the study and half of these people were profoundly mentally disabled. However, the other half had IQs over 100.

Claim revisited:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... -revisited

More like it seems that grey matter can be compressed like a sponge, and white matter isn't all that crucial for being highly functional. I'd say this is quite the remarkable discovery in itself, but it doesn't really seem to support CW -> PW or PW -> CW either.

[psyreporter]

The article merely makes an 'attempt' to explain away the cases and does so by reducing 'the brain' with a simplistic reduction to 1) grey matter and 2) white matter of which is then argued that white matter may not be required (because it is evidently missing) and that the brain can be compressed, of which is then said that it is merely a suggestion that until now was never proven to be possible.

No-one seems to have looked at this possibility directly [the brain tissue being compressed]; while there have been brain scanning studies of these adult post-hydrocephalics, no detailed post-mortem studies of their brain tissue have been published, as far as I know.

What is named 'white matter' that is missing is in reality many named parts such as "cerebellum, frontal lobe, temperal lobe, pons, medulla, latteral ventricles, hypothalamus, corpus callosum, central sulcus, prietal lobe, thalamus, occipital lobe, cerebellar cortex, etc."

Further, professor John Lorber was specifically mentioning the amount of brain tissue in weight. Why would he do so? Would it be a natural choice to use brain tissue weight in public communication? Wouldn't it be easier to use a percentage?

Perhaps it could indicate that scrutiny of his work has caused him to divert from the logical '5% there' statement to communicate '50 grams instead of 1.5 kilo' so that it is not possible to argue that the brain is merely compressed.

What do you think of the study that shows rapid adaptability of the brain that questions the correlation between brain functionality and 'human performance'?

Scientists unmask brain's hidden potential
"Our brain captures different types of information from the world -- sounds, sights, smells or tactile sensations," adds Pascual-Leone. "The impressions we form require us to merge these various different elements, but science's traditional view of brain function is that it is organized in separate and highly specialized systems."

But, he says, as the results of this research demonstrate, that is not the case.

"Our study shows that these views are incorrect and illustrate the potential for the human brain to rapidly and dynamically reorganize itself," notes Pascual-Leone. "We have shown that even in an adult, the normally developed visual system quickly becomes engaged to process touch in response to complete loss of sight. And we believe that these principles may also apply to other sensory loss, such as deafness or loss of function following brain injury."
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/906527