Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Burl

CIA whitepaper on consciousness

Recommended Posts

Wow. Lost me in a few areas but very interesting. Looks like a bonified CIA site from the http address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is U.S. Army research from 40 years ago.  Certainly it has improved in that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially found surprising investigation  into the future and time along with their experiments in what some call astral travel. I didn't realize the Army was so interested in a study into consciousness 40 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have been talking about remote viewing and mind control for a long time, but the documentation that poves these were not 'conspiracy theory' has only recently become declassified.  Derision is very effective in keeping people quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can imagine defence forces looking into this sort of thing, particularly on the back of the 70's, as any warfare advantage would be desirable, but has there been a single, useful, practical application of remote viewing and mind control ever developed by the military?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem so.  Much of the rmote viewing and MKultra papers have been declassified.

More fundamental is that the study of consciousness is a fact-based field of scientific research.  The days of philosophically making up one's own imaginary ideas of the nature of consciousness are over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Burl said:

It would seem so.  Much of the rmote viewing and MKultra papers have been declassified.

More fundamental is that the study of consciousness is a fact-based field of scientific research.  The days of philosophically making up one's own imaginary ideas of the nature of consciousness are over.

So there are actual military tools that demonstrate actual remote viewing at work?  

And are you able to summarise in just a paragraph of two, what this scientific research has demonstrated is the nature of consciousness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burl,

Are you able to save me the time from trawling through these and just outline one concrete outcome or tool that the military has discovered or verified concerning Remote Viewing or Mind Control?  Is there any evidence whatsoever that the military have been able to use these as tools?  From what I read in your first link, there didn't appear to be anything so I'm hesitant to spend my time trawling through further links to no avail.  You seem to have an interest in it so I was hoping you could simply point out these successes.

I didn't expect you to explain consciousness in its entirety but was merely asking against the context of your statement that "the days of philosophically making up one's own imaginary ideas of the nature of consciousness are over" to just briefly summarise what this military research revealed as the true nature of consciousness.

For me, consciousness stems from brain activity - no brain function, no consciousness.  Although we've had this discussion recently on here (not sure you participated in that one) there was still opinion and speculation about the nature of consciousness and if it exists outside of our own brains.  So when you were stating there was some sort of finality to any discussion concerning consciousness, I thought you might be able to cite something that actually finalised such discussion.

It seems to me that the links you provided only add further speculation about matters rather than any concrete evidence any of it is done and dusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Burl,

Are you able to save me the time from trawling through these and just outline one concrete outcome or tool that the military has discovered or verified concerning Remote Viewing or Mind Control?  Is there any evidence whatsoever that the military have been able to use these as tools?  From what I read in your first link, there didn't appear to be anything so I'm hesitant to spend my time trawling through further links to no avail.  You seem to have an interest in it so I was hoping you could simply point out these successes.

I didn't expect you to explain consciousness in its entirety but was merely asking against the context of your statement that "the days of philosophically making up one's own imaginary ideas of the nature of consciousness are over" to just briefly summarise what this military research revealed as the true nature of consciousness.

For me, consciousness stems from brain activity - no brain function, no consciousness.  Although we've had this discussion recently on here (not sure you participated in that one) there was still opinion and speculation about the nature of consciousness and if it exists outside of our own brains.  So when you were stating there was some sort of finality to any discussion concerning consciousness, I thought you might be able to cite something that actually finalised such discussion.

It seems to me that the links you provided only add further speculation about matters rather than any concrete evidence any of it is done and dusted.

No, you need to do your own work if this interests you.  The links show that serious scientifc work exists, and that the government finds it valuable enough to put it into applied projects.

Researchers have written books on these subjects, and that is where to start.  I have no particular interest in the nature of consciousness.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, scientific research that has led nowhere and produced nothing meaningful, doesn't particularly interest me all that much (I could probably catch it all on an X-Files re-run anyway).  The link shows that some work was done 40 or so years ago, without any meaningful or useful result (regarding mind control or Remote Viewing).   Like I said, I can imagine a government researching this topic against the backdrop of the 70's and in the hope it may give them some military advantage.  Clearly it hasn't.  I was just hoping you might have been able to quote something that was significant and useful from these applied projects that the government valued so much.  It doesn't seem like they have developed a single, useful tool.

If you have no particular interest in the nature of consciousness, then I'd question how you would come to the conclusion that the days of philosophically making up one's own imaginary ideas of the nature of consciousness are over.  Based on one 40 year old CIA report with non-conclusive evidence or proof about consciousness?  It just seems like an odd thing for a person to say who isn't particularly interested in the subject matter.  But, so be it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

I looked at some of the remote viewing papers which don't really tell you much without knowledge of the site they were remotely viewing or what was correct in their drawing and notes and what was not. But as far as belief in remote viewing goes to me it is real. Back  in the 1980's I had a number of episodes myself that were remarkably  amazing . In one, I was a temporary software contractor at Armco Steel and an employee asked me to go to lunch with them and I passed up the opportunity and while staying and meditating during lunch instead I saw a clear vision of them going to an eatery and for some reason felt compelled to draw it out on a piece of paper in detail.  I showed it to him when they returned and asked if he went to the place I drew. Astonished he said they had. Now I know I saw the place that I had never seen before and drew it but I can only assume  their astonishment was genuine. That was not the only remote viewing but the only one I had any direct feedback on. Now i know that is not scientific proof by any means but such an experience can convince the one who has it that there is something there.  How do you make it happen... I don't know. I didn't perceive having any control. It just came when conditions were ripe. So go figure. ?

Joseph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PaulS said:

No, scientific research that has led nowhere and produced nothing meaningful, doesn't particularly interest me all that much (I could probably catch it all on an X-Files re-run anyway).  The link shows that some work was done 40 or so years ago, without any meaningful or useful result (regarding mind control or Remote Viewing).   Like I said, I can imagine a government researching this topic against the backdrop of the 70's and in the hope it may give them some military advantage.  Clearly it hasn't.  I was just hoping you might have been able to quote something that was significant and useful from these applied projects that the government valued so much.  It doesn't seem like they have developed a single, useful tool.

If you have no particular interest in the nature of consciousness, then I'd question how you would come to the conclusion that the days of philosophically making up one's own imaginary ideas of the nature of consciousness are over.  Based on one 40 year old CIA report with non-conclusive evidence or proof about consciousness?  It just seems like an odd thing for a person to say who isn't particularly interested in the subject matter.  But, so be it.

 

 

 

I am interested in the philosophy of science.  You always go with the best information you can get.  Philosophy trumps cracker barrel noodling, and real life observations trump philosophy.  The fact that scientists are funded to study the phenomena means opinions are no longer sufficient.  The bar is now set higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Burl said:

The fact that scientists are funded to study the phenomena means opinions are no longer sufficient.  The bar is now set higher.

Not really sure it's a fact, Burl.  What funding amount do they currently get and where is it allocated?  Can you substantiate this claim or is it a presumption?

But even if they are, how is the bar set any higher than opinion? The research from 40 years ago doesn't offer anything we don't know about the brain.  It did not establish any proof or use whatsoever for Remote Viewing or mind control - so it would seem to still be fantasy.  I would agree the bar is set higher if there was a shred of evidence that Remote Viewing/Mind Control existed and could be utilised, but clearly the CIA report and your other links fail to produce any goods whatsoever.  In fact, this report looks more like cracker-barrel noodling than anything remotely like real science.  There certainly weren't any real observations about Remote Viewing or Mind Control verified in such research anyway, so I'm really not sure what you think is trumping what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PaulS said:

Not really sure it's a fact, Burl.  What funding amount do they currently get and where is it allocated?  Can you substantiate this claim or is it a presumption?

But even if they are, how is the bar set any higher than opinion? The research from 40 years ago doesn't offer anything we don't know about the brain.  It did not establish any proof or use whatsoever for Remote Viewing or mind control - so it would seem to still be fantasy.  I would agree the bar is set higher if there was a shred of evidence that Remote Viewing/Mind Control existed and could be utilised, but clearly the CIA report and your other links fail to produce any goods whatsoever.  In fact, this report looks more like cracker-barrel noodling than anything remotely like real science.  There certainly weren't any real observations about Remote Viewing or Mind Control verified in such research anyway, so I'm really not sure what you think is trumping what.

 

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

Not really sure it's a fact, Burl.  What funding amount do they currently get and where is it allocated?  Can you substantiate this claim or is it a presumption?

But even if they are, how is the bar set any higher than opinion? The research from 40 years ago doesn't offer anything we don't know about the brain.  It did not establish any proof or use whatsoever for Remote Viewing or mind control - so it would seem to still be fantasy.  I would agree the bar is set higher if there was a shred of evidence that Remote Viewing/Mind Control existed and could be utilised, but clearly the CIA report and your other links fail to produce any goods whatsoever.  In fact, this report looks more like cracker-barrel noodling than anything remotely like real science.  There certainly weren't any real observations about Remote Viewing or Mind Control verified in such research anyway, so I'm really not sure what you think is trumping what.

Whatever you say, Paul.  I'm not here to argue or change your thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JosephM said:

Paul,

I looked at some of the remote viewing papers which don't really tell you much without knowledge of the site they were remotely viewing or what was correct in their drawing and notes and what was not. But as far as belief in remote viewing goes to me it is real. Back  in the 1980's I had a number of episodes myself that were remarkably  amazing . In one, I was a temporary software contractor at Armco Steel and an employee asked me to go to lunch with them and I passed up the opportunity and while staying and meditating during lunch instead I saw a clear vision of them going to an eatery and for some reason felt compelled to draw it out on a piece of paper in detail.  I showed it to him when they returned and asked if he went to the place I drew. Astonished he said they had. Now I know I saw the place that I had never seen before and drew it but I can only assume  their astonishment was genuine. That was not the only remote viewing but the only one I had any direct feedback on. Now i know that is not scientific proof by any means but such an experience can convince the one who has it that there is something there.  How do you make it happen... I don't know. I didn't perceive having any control. It just came when conditions were ripe. So go figure. ?

Joseph

It's pretty hard not to be sceptical Joseph, not because I think you're making it up but because I wonder if there is a physical way to explain it that we're not considering (subconsciously overhearing lunch location and you've been there before, etc).  I fully believe the brain does a lot more than we as yet understand).  Nonetheless, I am sure it seems very, very real to you as an experience (and perhaps it is). 

My point about these papers though is that just because a government agency spends money researching something should in no way be interpreted as evidence of something existing.  These papers lack any verification of the outcome Burl seems to suggest as fact and it would seem nobody knows of any advancement made (or military tool developed) that utilises Remote Viewing or Mind Control.  So all this scientific research and no actual results.  Now that seems to be enough for Burl to conclude the discussion is ended on consciousness and that remote Viewing/Mind Control are legitimate and scientifically understood, but it's not for me. 

To suggest something could exist and perhaps should be further investigated, with some sort of rational explaining why, I would have no issue with.  This doesn't seem like one of those subjects IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burl said:

 

Whatever you say, Paul.  I'm not here to argue or change your thinking.

I'd like to think of it more as debate and dialogue (as per the title of the section you've posted in) rather than arguing, but if that's what you feel comfortable calling it, no probs.  Enjoy your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, 

I truly understand your skepticism. There are always alternate explanations and even that is not scientific fact, perhaps theory, or best guess or explanation. Here is a summary site by CBS that won't take long to read. You might find it interesting and all the studies have not yet been declassified .https://www.cbsnews.com/news/remote-viewing-up-close/

PS    " Whether or not science can explain a phenomenon doesn't change its reality, only its perception as a fact "   ----Joseph

Joseph

Edited by JosephM
added PS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above link does little to subdue my scepticism Joseph:

  • 20 years of psychic spying didn't convince the Congress that it actually worked (speaks volumes as to its effectiveness - i.e. it's not).  This is my whole point about the above links provided by Burl - they demonstrate zero practical results yet still people insist that they somehow support the notion of Remote Viewing &/or Mind Control.  They don't.  All they support is that yes, the Government did provide a budget for this research, but as your article points out, after 20 years of no results the Government abandoned the notion.
  • 1995 - Professor Ray Hymen was commissioned to study the effectiveness of remote viewing and concludes "The evidence we have is that they're no better than you or I. I can just talk at random for 15 minutes, and what I say will probably match something".  Again, no evidence can be produced when it is put to the test.
  • Remote viewer Joe McMoneagle, who earlier in the article is given some acclaim (without evidence) and is pronounced by an esteemed proponent of ESP (Targ) , as "the most talented of the group, setting a benchmark for how good a psychic could be", failed when put to the test under research conditions.  He simply couldn't do that which he was regarded as most proficient at.

So in all of the above, it's not a case of science not being able to explain a phenomenon, but rather that this so called 'phenomenon' doesn't actually exist when put to the test.  If it cannot be demonstrated then it how can one say it exists?  We're at best subject to 'personal experience' - which is unverifiable.  It's a little bit like some people's arguments for different Gods and religions - they know it to be true so it must be.

More than happy to change my mind if somebody, anybody, can produce just one scientifically verifiable experiment that demonstrates Remote Viewing actually works. This nonsense about most of the info still being classified is rubbish.  Over a year ago Burl's initial reference was released, and that document itself was dated a decade or so after funding started for this research, yet nothing has been declassified that supports the notion (with any modicum of evidence I mean).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject and the study is of no real interest to me but what did catch my eye is Paul's comment, "If it cannot be demonstrated then it how can one say it exists?  ....  It's a little bit like some people's arguments for different Gods and religions - they know it to be true so it must be."

I side with Joseph along the lines of a general argument. "Whether or not science can explain a phenomenon doesn't change its reality..........."  

Also, it doesn't seem that people are arguing about different gods but simply trying to say something about the reality called God. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thormas said:

Also, it doesn't seem that people are arguing about different gods but simply trying to say something about the reality called God. 

 

My point is about whether it's actually reality, God or not.  Just because somebody believes in something or feels something to be true does not mean that it is real necessarily.   I think history has demonstrated numerous times how the 'unexplained' has been attributed to a god or gods, only for further developments to later reveal a very non God-like explanation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PaulS said:

My point is about whether it's actually reality, God or not.  Just because somebody believes in something or feels something to be true does not mean that it is real necessarily.   I think history has demonstrated numerous times how the 'unexplained' has been attributed to a god or gods, only for further developments to later reveal a very non God-like explanation. 

Well, it seems apparent there is 'reality' and concerning that reality, people have different takes: for some it is just what is and the matter is closed, for others the reality is or indicates something more and some call that God. 

So, it can also be said that just because somebody believes in something or feels something is not true (i.e. that reality is God or simply that God is) does not mean that it is not real or, indeed, true.   

History has indeed demonstrated numerous times how the 'unexplained' has been attributed to a god or gods, only for further developments to later reveal a very non God-like explanation - yet history has never demonstrated (and never will) that there is not (or is) something beyond the god/gods explanations that Is the reality, properly called God. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, thormas said:

Well, it seems apparent there is 'reality' and concerning that reality, people have different takes: for some it is just what is and the matter is closed, for others the reality is or indicates something more and some call that God. 

So, it can also be said that just because somebody believes in something or feels something is not true (i.e. that reality is God or simply that God is) does not mean that it is not real or, indeed, true.   

History has indeed demonstrated numerous times how the 'unexplained' has been attributed to a god or gods, only for further developments to later reveal a very non God-like explanation - yet history has never demonstrated (and never will) that there is not (or is) something beyond the god/gods explanations that Is the reality, properly called God. 

 

I understand you are certain about this so-called reality you say is properly called God, but I suspect exactly what you are certain about concerning this 'God' is much less certain.  So which bit you are referring to as reality, and which bits aren't reality, remain in doubt I guess?

I think we misuse the word reality when we use it to define things that we cannot substantiate as existing.  This language creep lends legitimacy to all sorts of things that others might call reality but which many would disagree with as being true.  If I think it's a reality that I am helping God by oppressing others, then is it reality?  If I think black people are dumber than white people, is it reality?  If I truly feel that women are the weaker sex and cannot do what men can do, is it reality?  Now these beliefs exists, but I hope you would agree, they are not reality.

I simply don't think we can call things reality just because we want to.  There rightly should be some burden of proof or we should be happy with calling it an opinion, but not reality.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I understand you are certain about this so-called reality you say is properly called God, but I suspect exactly what you are certain about concerning this 'God' is much less certain.  So which bit you are referring to as reality, and which bits aren't reality, remain in doubt I guess?

I think we misuse the word reality when we use it to define things that we cannot substantiate as existing.  This language creep lends legitimacy to all sorts of things that others might call reality but which many would disagree with as being true.  If I think it's a reality that I am helping God by oppressing others, then is it reality?  If I think black people are dumber than white people, is it reality?  If I truly feel that women are the weaker sex and cannot do what men can do, is it reality?  Now these beliefs exists, but I hope you would agree, they are not reality.

I simply don't think we can call things reality just because we want to.  There rightly should be some burden of proof or we should be happy with calling it an opinion, but not reality.  

Actually, I believe what we experience in everyday life is real, thus I call it reality. You know, the same usage and meaning if one talks about reality TV (but without the scripts). From there, it is a decision if one accept only what is apparent or allows that there is something 'more' at play. So, no, not certainty at least not in a gathering of evidence kind of way, but, if certain at all, only the 'certainty' (and hope) of faith. But, in part, you are correct, we cannot know 'God' in himself, only what we 'believe' to be the human experience of the 'more' (that some of us call God) that is present and indeed active in existence. 

So, given the above, I believe that all reality is or participates in the Reality called God (i.e. panentheism). I don't break it into bits (which seems an interesting approach) no more that I break my life into bits.

Seemingly neither of us can 'substantiate' our take on reality: you think I inflate it, I think you deflate it. Thus it is, as has been said a few times before, belief (one way or the other). 

It's been a bit since I have thought about the history of religion but belief in gods (and eventually God) seems to include the gods that help humanity (and are loved) and the ones that hurt humanity (and are not loved but feared, even hated, secretly of course). And then there is the continuing evolution of religious thought which ultimately gets to God as caring and concerned and on the side of humanity. Along with this there is typically an ethic of behavior based on this belief that mirrors what is believed about God. Help looks and feels like help whereas oppression and repression are not experienced as helpful or healthy or life affirming. Therefore, most would say your reality (the God you help by oppressing people and who supports racism) is at odds not only with religious belief but with the experience of what is actually helpful in human life. Therefore, most would probably suggest you are not reflecting or grasping Reality (as it is) but, rather, your reality is a wounded, distortion of your ego (not you, of course, but the hypothetical one who believes oppression helps God). And you are the proof in the pudding as you have said these beliefs are not reality; you recognize that they are at odds with what is.

You think we call reality or Reality (the Really Real) God because we want to, whereas I say we call it that because we recognized that realities (or better fantasies as you have described above and agreed are not reality) are our creation but there is Reality that is 'there' to be discovered and lived by men and women. There is no 'proof' but there is the reality that if we actually replaced the oppression and repression of others with compassionate concern (love), we would then see which is actually helpful and builds a truly human life and world. On that the jury is in, the people have spoken and the world longs for more 'sweet love.' 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×