Second Sight May Take First Place in Consciousness Studies

What if anomalous perception isn’t anomalous, what if it’s an underlying component of consciousness itself? Psi skeptics might be in for a surprise if Dr. Jim Carpenter’s research is correct.

“There is a new theory about your mind — about where your decisions and experiences come from before you are aware of them. This theory has solid science behind it, and it suggests that there is a lot more going on in your mind than you realize.

Parts of this theory are familiar. Research has told us that brain events stand behind every thought we think and lead to them. And we have learned that many implicit psychological processes precede our experiences too, processes like subliminal sensations, stored memories and long-term values. These things aren’t conscious in themselves, but the unconscious mind uses them to help lead to whatever we do become conscious of.

A difference about this theory, called “First Sight,” is that it assumes that a much bigger domain of unconscious information stands behind experience. This includes things that are beyond the reach of our senses — it includes the extrasensory. And it assumes that this reference to extrasensory information is not rare, but that it is continual.

First Sight brings in what is popularly called the “paranormal.” It is different from previous ways of thinking about the paranormal in that it shows that our use of extrasensory information is actually normal and helpful, although unconscious. No “para” is needed anymore. This theory leads us to an expanded idea of our normal psychology.”

Read more about Dr. Carpenter’s First Sight theory at Huffington Post.

, , ,

  • David Howe

    fine.  all we need are objective scientific studies proving this.  

  • David Howe

    fine.  all we need are objective scientific studies proving this.  

    • Kevin Leonard

      IMO, informed by the cosmology of Rudolf Steiner, we are a long way off from objective scientific studies proving anything associated with the mind. In Steiner’s model, the brain is a sense organ. In much the same way as the eye receives visual data, and the ear receives sounds, the brain receives thought; thought is from the mind and the mind exists outside the physical. The model goes a long way in explaining ESP experiences.
      If you keep waiting for objective scientific studies before you accept any part of the non-physical reality, you will be waiting for a long time. We can not measure a thought, only brainwaves “picking up the static.”

    • Kevin Leonard

      IMO, informed by the cosmology of Rudolf Steiner, we are a long way off from objective scientific studies proving anything associated with the mind. In Steiner’s model, the brain is a sense organ. In much the same way as the eye receives visual data, and the ear receives sounds, the brain receives thought; thought is from the mind and the mind exists outside the physical. The model goes a long way in explaining ESP experiences.
      If you keep waiting for objective scientific studies before you accept any part of the non-physical reality, you will be waiting for a long time. We can not measure a thought, only brainwaves “picking up the static.”

      • David Howe

        You are using the Argument from Ignorance with a dash of ad hominem. 

        There is in fact a great deal of objective science on the human brain, including memory, sense perception and other factors.  Please do the research yourself if you have the will to do so.  Prove to me that you are not acting in Bad Faith by educating yourself.

      • David Howe

        You are using the Argument from Ignorance with a dash of ad hominem. 

        There is in fact a great deal of objective science on the human brain, including memory, sense perception and other factors.  Please do the research yourself if you have the will to do so.  Prove to me that you are not acting in Bad Faith by educating yourself.

        • Kevin Leonard

          I’m actually quite aware of many studies similar to which you allude. As well, I’m aware of logical fallacies. If anything, I am guilty of Appeal to Authority (Steiner), though that is arguable, as Steiner is considered by many as an expert on consciousness. As well, I do state, very clearly at the beginning, that my comments are opinion.
          You place the burden of proof on me that I am not acting in Bad Faith. You make a faulty assumption that I do not educate myself. Is this because I have simply presented a concept that more than the material reality exists, apparently an opposing view of yours? (speaking of Ad Hominem, Mr. Pot to the Kettle)
          It seems to me there is a greater question of where the burden of proof lies in regard to whether reality consists of that which is strictly material and measurable, or whether a non-physical, non-measurable (with current technology) reality may exist coincidentally.

          I do not deny the science. I only question the conclusions. Again, in Steiner’s “model,” the origin of thought is outside the physical brain. That is not to say that physical is irrelevant. In the model, the brain is the interface. The science regarding the functions of the region of the brain (including memory) does not negate the model.

          My argument is that objective scientific studies are inadequate to confirm or deny the subjectivity of thought. Where does the burden of proof lie? and why?

        • Kevin Leonard

          I’m actually quite aware of many studies similar to which you allude. As well, I’m aware of logical fallacies. If anything, I am guilty of Appeal to Authority (Steiner), though that is arguable, as Steiner is considered by many as an expert on consciousness. As well, I do state, very clearly at the beginning, that my comments are opinion.
          You place the burden of proof on me that I am not acting in Bad Faith. You make a faulty assumption that I do not educate myself. Is this because I have simply presented a concept that more than the material reality exists, apparently an opposing view of yours? (speaking of Ad Hominem, Mr. Pot to the Kettle)
          It seems to me there is a greater question of where the burden of proof lies in regard to whether reality consists of that which is strictly material and measurable, or whether a non-physical, non-measurable (with current technology) reality may exist coincidentally.

          I do not deny the science. I only question the conclusions. Again, in Steiner’s “model,” the origin of thought is outside the physical brain. That is not to say that physical is irrelevant. In the model, the brain is the interface. The science regarding the functions of the region of the brain (including memory) does not negate the model.

          My argument is that objective scientific studies are inadequate to confirm or deny the subjectivity of thought. Where does the burden of proof lie? and why?

          • David Howe

            that’s some real deep bullshit.  we’re through here.

          • Kevin Leonard

            Hah. See Mr. Ad Hominem scurry.

            Not even willing to address the question on where the burden of proof lies?

            Would that be because requiring material proof Begs the Question?

            Through indeed.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do

            The state of current philosophy tends to give materialists furrowed brows. Even the thought that thought creates reality sends them scurrying in all directions.

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    of course “First Sight” exists
    there have been plenty of studies that show we begin to react before we are consciously aware
    add to that the fact that our experience of RIGHT NOW is on tape delay
    and you have “scientific” proof

    in a place where I ride my bike
    there is a series of narrow cement barriers that I have to pass between
    they are slightly wider than the width with peddle span
    when I watch to see if I clear it, I usually fail
    if I let go and let the force do it
    I sail through every time

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    of course “First Sight” exists
    there have been plenty of studies that show we begin to react before we are consciously aware
    add to that the fact that our experience of RIGHT NOW is on tape delay
    and you have “scientific” proof

    in a place where I ride my bike
    there is a series of narrow cement barriers that I have to pass between
    they are slightly wider than the width with peddle span
    when I watch to see if I clear it, I usually fail
    if I let go and let the force do it
    I sail through every time

  • Ted Heistman

    A lot of what people are conscious of in the form of “thoughts” are rationalizations after the fact. 

  • Ted Heistman

    A lot of what people are conscious of in the form of “thoughts” are rationalizations after the fact. 

  • Ted Heistman

    A lot of what people are conscious of in the form of “thoughts” are rationalizations after the fact. 

21