"Intelligence is Self Teaching" A paranormal experience into A.I and Intelligence.

[Limbo]

"Intelligence is Self Teaching" like how Ouroboros is self-eating?

 

[WWHP]

hah! I like that - thanks Limbo

 

[Limbo]

 

[Trent Wray]

I suggest if one is interested in what the 'experience' is like - to simply take ayahuasca - and then deconstruct it from there. Ayahuasca shows there is some merit in the claims, i.e., if you experience spirits talking to you, it is reasonable to claim spirits are talking to you.

To be fair, I was talking "experiment" directed a Limbo.

And the problem I see with ayahuasca, is that whatever I experience is a result of the plant. None of it will manifest or materialize in a reality outside of my own perceptive reality ... which is taking place in my mind.

And that is the bottom line. Regardless of whether I'm talking to spirits or hallucinations or leprechauns, it's all in my mind. How practical is that? In all seriousness, how practical is that?

Suppose I REALLY was talking to spirits in my mind. Real ones. Is there a definitive way for me to know the difference between the spirits and my own thoughts? Do I have to be drugged everytime? And what if the spirits start telling me to do things? It's all good and dandy as long as the spirits are telling me things of no consequence ... but what if they start telling me to kill my family and chop them up and stuff them in a duffle bag? Then what? At that point do I stop listening to them? Or do I try to keep a relationship with the spirits, but just keep a guarded one? Can I ever ask them to leave? At some point, I'll probably think to myself, "I wish I never had invited those spirits into my mind in the first place," ... the lack of practicality of the whole thing will prove itself.

Unless you want to start going down the Edgar Cayce type of route ... and then it's up to the individual whether or not they want to listen to your spirits or not.

 

[Limbo]

Trent, I have an idea for an experiment for us. Let me run it past you.

We enlist JREF volunteers and give them a questionnaire and assign them into groups based on their answers. Then we set up a schedule and we have the groups compete to influence an online random number generator at a website somewhere by using micro-PK.

For instance, group A could log in to the random number generator website at 7pm and for an hour they intend for the RNG to output more 1 than 0.

Then wait an hour and group B logs in at 9pm and likewise attempts to get more 1 than 0. See which group gets the most. Big prizes for the most psychic group.

Then the next day switch it around. Have the groups try for more 0 than 1. Do that for a week or so and chart the results and analyze. What do you think?

 

[Trent Wray]

Trent, I have an idea for an experiment for us. Let me run it past you.

We enlist JREF volunteers and give them a questionnaire and assign them into groups based on their answers. Then we set up a schedule and we have the groups compete to influence an online random number generator at a website somewhere by using micro-PK.

For instance, group A could log in to the random number generator website at 7pm and for an hour they intend for the RNG to output more 1 than 0.

Then wait an hour and group B logs in at 9pm and likewise attempts to get more 1 than 0. See which group gets the most. Big prizes for the most psychic group.

Then the next day switch it around. Have the groups try for more 0 than 1. Do that for a week or so and chart the results and analyze. What do you think?

I'm going to post this in the other thread, if that's allright .... to get the input of the others. Personally, as long as it doesn't cost me much over 5$ i'll do anything at least once . Lets continue it in the other thread ...

 

[Limbo]

Sure go for it.

 

[WWHP]

To be fair, I was talking "experiment" directed a Limbo.

fair enough then

And the problem I see with ayahuasca, is that whatever I experience is a result of the plant. None of it will manifest or materialize in a reality outside of my own perceptive reality ... which is taking place in my mind.

how it that a problem, and how is that any different than any other cognitive process that produces ideas, of which translate into results? Or am I missing something here?

And that is the bottom line. Regardless of whether I'm talking to spirits or hallucinations or leprechauns, it's all in my mind. How practical is that? In all seriousness, how practical is that?

i guess it depends upon how you came to the conclusion that it would be a worthwhile experience to have, no?

For example, if people are achieving clarity from drinking ayahuasca, then it would seem practical to continue.

If some people are deeply curious about their own consciousness and wish to experience more subtle areas, then it would seem practical to go to the source and try ayahuasca.

If some people are intrigued that they have DMT in their own neuro-pharmacology - and it has been shown that this molecule is responsible for profound mystical, mythic, and near death experiences, then trying ayahuasca seems practical.

If someone does not value that sort of adventure, and prefers a more hard knock book read approach to find inspiration and reflection, then I imagine it would not seem very practical.

Suppose I REALLY was talking to spirits in my mind. Real ones. Is there a definitive way for me to know the difference between the spirits and my own thoughts?

I REALLY like that question and one I have thought about often. Maybe there is NO distinction between spirits and ideas. Perhaps the distinction is merely semantics and culture, cosmology and philosophy. After all, in german, 'spirit' translates as 'giest' which is also used to describe 'mind'. If this is the case, then what 'basket' does the baby fall in? Perhaps we live in a field of 'spirits', self reflecting and self teaching, a purely subjective field that we all participate in unknowingly, or perhaps it just a function of our brains that deliver us a vast library of intelligences, some intergalactic in nature along side a very rational thinking process.

Either way, we are left with a set of very profound experience that through history have shown utility.

I think it is irrelevant in one sense to either their subjective or objective nature. The fact is if one does certain things, certain other things will happen. Just because it is a spirt, it does not mean the spirit knows what it is talking about. Conversely - just because it is an idea in our heads, it doesn't make it objectively true.

Do I have to be drugged everytime?

Not a question I can answer, other than relaying reports of shamans in the amazon, who say they are aware of spirits without the ayahuasca, but when they take the ayahuasca, it is like applying a microscope to get a better view.

And what if the spirits start telling me to do things?

Well I hope you are a skeptic if that happens to you! I imagine you still would have to apply critical thinking. If a spirit tells you "Intelligence is Self Teaching", you can obviously apply logic, critical thinking, to test the validity of the phrase on it's own merits.

It's all good and dandy as long as the spirits are telling me things of no consequence ... but what if they start telling me to kill my family and chop them up and stuff them in a duffle bag? Then what?

lol, you have to ask?

At that point do I stop listening to them? Or do I try to keep a relationship with the spirits, but just keep a guarded one? Can I ever ask them to leave? At some point, I'll probably think to myself, "I wish I never had invited those spirits into my mind in the first place," ... the lack of practicality of the whole thing will prove itself.

well, I can say that in the Amazon, this is a concern and where the 'icaros' and rituals come in, because you want to avoid the malicious spirits, and bring in the healing spirits. It takes years of initiation to be able to do this.

Unless you want to start going down the Edgar Cayce type of route ... and then it's up to the individual whether or not they want to listen to your spirits or not.

I think one can remain completely agnostic, skeptical, and open minded and simply enjoy and appreciate the experience without attaching a firm truth value one way or another.

 

[Sunsneezer]

Your paranoid a bit here. Ayahuasca is called 'medicina' in the amazon and is actual medicine with a consistent efficacy. Calling it a 'drug' per your usuage would be confusing to it's utility, and 'drug' is just another name for medicine anyway - your internal semantics has it's own emotional reality going on apparently.

There is nothing emotional or paranoid there. French being my first language, the french words 'drug (drogue)' and 'medicine(médicament)' have completely different meanings and connotations, so that explains why I fixated on that detail.

This reads very confused to me. Are you suggesting that original thinking is not possible on hallucinogenic drugs? The history of science would contradict that and your statement is not supported by the body of evidence.

Sorry it wasn't clear... What I was saying is that original thinking is very possible on, and even helped by hallucinogenic drugs. Completely original, uncensored, unfiltered thinking. Thoughts so original, in fact, they could be completely useless and illogical outside of the hallucination.

If you are correct, then 'Intelligence is Self Teaching" would not be logical. Since it holds a logical form and offers completeness, you need to provide some logical commentary yourself for your POV to hold any sort of relevance in this discussion.

I said 'it is not restricted by logic' not 'it is restricted to non-logic'. I meant to say that it can be logical, or be utterly false, but it will all feel the same at the moment you experience the hallucination. I never experienced Ayahuasca, but I tried other substances, like Salvia Divinorium and Mushrooms. On the mushrooms, I got the impression that I understood the universe, but this impression then faded away, and I realized it was not based on anything. Salvia was weird and not very pleasant, but it was like a reboot, your mind starting from scratch. Like getting unstuck in time and getting an infinite perspective. I didn't get any useful piece of philosophy from those experiences, really, but when they occurred it felt vivid and important and profound. I can see the danger of getting fixated on those illusions of deep understanding.

Like I mentioned previously, this is an emotional statement and is not supported by the vast body of evidence on the matter.

I don't think the evidence points to nothing more than hallucinations being a lively mix of one's own psyche, memory and perception. You can get wisdom from hallucinations the same way you can get wisdom from a dream. It can supply a fresh take on a problem, or a new perspective on something, but it will often be surrounded by fantasies and random junk and filtered through your own experiences. The trap is that there is no real way to tell fantasy from genuine realizations by yourself. Especially not while you are hallucinating.

A perception must stand on it's own to have any validity and it's origins are irrelevant. Considering the Francis Crick discovered his insight into the DNA molecule on LSD, Carl Sagan admitting that some of his best ideas came to him while high on Marijuana, your ideas about neuro-chemistry seem a bit outdated and more importantly philosophically irrelevant and misleading.

I'm not saying that information you get from hallucinations is not potentially valuable. Both of these examples are about people who already had all they needed inside their minds, and the substance gave them a fresh perspective on what they already know or removed some barriers that prevented them from reaching a conclusion.
But there are as many anecdotes about people who dreamed a solution to a problem. Or have the solution popping randomly in their heads while looking at something unrelated. Nothing paranormal there, just the intricacies of the human mind.

 

[Paul2]

if you experience spirits talking to you, it is reasonable to claim spirits are talking to you.

Not so much.

Only if an experience is comprised of elements that one has previously well-established to be reliable or factual or objectively true would it be reasonable to claim that the immediate, common sense interpretation of an experience is actually factual without some sort of independent verification.

For instance, if I think I see my dog walk up to me and want to be petted, I can trust that I am actually seeing my dog do that because I have verified in the past that that interpretation has been true (actually, every single time I've seen that, the common sense interpretation of my experience has been true).

But if I see a pink unicorn, I should not conclude that there is actually a pink unicorn out there that is the basis for my experience because experiences can be misleading, we can fool ourselves without knowing it, etc.

But if I see a coin flip heads in a row 100 times, and my entire classroom also sees exactly the same thing, I have much more confidence that my experience truly reflects what objectively happened.

Furthermore, in the case of a purely internal/mental event (talking to spirits), we have a competing interpretation that is much more likely because it fits with other events we have well verified: those other events are the internal monologue that our minds routinely carry out. The experience of a voice in the head is much closer to the routine experience of our own voices in our heads than it is to the experience of a spirit talking to us, a conclusion for which we have no other good verification. So it's more reasonable to assume that the experience is actually some variation of what we already know happens than it something that depends on elements (spirits) for which we have no good independent verification.

 

[WWHP]

There is nothing emotional or paranoid there. French being my first language, the french words 'drug (drogue)' and 'medicine(médicament)' have completely different meanings and connotations, so that explains why I fixated on that detail.

Ok, but to be clear, ayahuasca is unique amongst hallucinogens, and is actually beneficial health-wise, it is medicine, unlike other substances such as LSD or what have you.

Sorry it wasn't clear... What I was saying is that original thinking is very possible on, and even helped by hallucinogenic drugs. Completely original, uncensored, unfiltered thinking. Thoughts so original, in fact, they could be completely useless and illogical outside of the hallucination.

incomprehensible, yes I agree.

I said 'it is not restricted by logic' not 'it is restricted to non-logic'. I meant to say that it can be logical, or be utterly false, but it will all feel the same at the moment you experience the hallucination.

based on your experience, perhaps, but there are people I know that work through actual theorems and algorithms while on certain hallucinogens.

I never experienced Ayahuasca, but I tried other substances, like Salvia Divinorium and Mushrooms. On the mushrooms, I got the impression that I understood the universe, but this impression then faded away, and I realized it was not based on anything. Salvia was weird and not very pleasant, but it was like a reboot, your mind starting from scratch. Like getting unstuck in time and getting an infinite perspective. I didn't get any useful piece of philosophy from those experiences, really, but when they occurred it felt vivid and important and profound. I can see the danger of getting fixated on those illusions of deep understanding.

well you are speaking from your experience, and who knows, maybe in those moments you did have profound insight, but did not have a framework that was conceptual and flexible enough to bring anything back from the experience. It does seem like you're making some rather blanket statements regarding these sorts of experiences and projecting your own onto them.

I don't think the evidence points to nothing more than hallucinations being a lively mix of one's own psyche, memory and perception.

what evidence? when I read comments like this I sort of cringe, because the Western reductionist paradigm pre-supposes some pretty extraordinary claims about consciousness without having any understanding of it.

You can get wisdom from hallucinations the same way you can get wisdom from a dream. It can supply a fresh take on a problem, or a new perspective on something, but it will often be surrounded by fantasies and random junk and filtered through your own experiences. The trap is that there is no real way to tell fantasy from genuine realizations by yourself. Especially not while you are hallucinating.

That's your experience. That's your filter. Your saying you can't distinguish between fantasy and objective reality while on these substances, therefore, neither can anyone else.

One of the unique things about Ayahuasca, and I can say this from personal experience, is the rational observer does not go away during the experience.

I'm not saying that information you get from hallucinations is not potentially valuable. Both of these examples are about people who already had all they needed inside their minds, and the substance gave them a fresh perspective on what they already know or removed some barriers that prevented them from reaching a conclusion.
But there are as many anecdotes about people who dreamed a solution to a problem. Or have the solution popping randomly in their heads while looking at something unrelated. Nothing paranormal there, just the intricacies of the human mind.

What are you even defining paranormal to be to say that it's not paranormal? Are you aware that consciousness, the mind, intelligence, awareness, are some of the most complex problems in science? Ones that we are so far from having any comprehensive understanding of?

Surely we can distinguish between supernatural, and any form of nature beyond our understanding. Mind and consciousness is far too complex for us to have comprehensive understanding based on what we know now, and it is indeed reasonable to poke around supernatural events for a causal in mind or consciousness.

Reductionism already implies that it all MUST be simply a function of our brains. Yet there is no research that can quantify that because there is no evidence that consciousness itself even exists.

yet we know it exists because we experience it.



I say this as an agnostic, I am not a believer. I am also not a denier. I prefer simply to watch and observe without projecting one ideology or another onto the experience.

 

[WWHP]

Not so much.

Only if an experience is comprised of elements that one has previously well-established to be reliable or factual or objectively true would it be reasonable to claim that the immediate, common sense interpretation of an experience is actually factual without some sort of independent verification.

I think your missing the point I was making, and my apologies if my point was not clearly stated by myself. If we have vast and extensive cultures who have histories dating back millennia, who 'talk to spirits' because they actually have experiences where it is reasonable to interpret it that way, then it is reasonable for them to claim that. If you drink ayahuasca your whole life, and every-time a giant anaconda tells you how to make different medicines from various plants in your environment, it's reasonable to say that a spirit told you how to make it, since you didn't have that knowledge previously.

And I am not over exaggerating. The vast majority of western pharmaceuticals come from the amazon basin, and those medicines were discovered by curanderos who claim they speak to the spirits of the plants to concoct them.

Experience gives you certainty in the moment, not faith. It's not faith based when they make those claims.

For instance, if I think I see my dog walk up to me and want to be petted, I can trust that I am actually seeing my dog do that because I have verified in the past that that interpretation has been true (actually, every single time I've seen that, the common sense interpretation of my experience has been true).

Now if your dog comes up to you and speaks to you each and every single time, and tells you things you have no knowledge of, and then you can provide your own verification to the knowledge's truth value, then it is reasonable to claim your dog talks to you.

But if I see a pink unicorn, I should not conclude that there is actually a pink unicorn out there that is the basis for my experience because experiences can be misleading, we can fool ourselves without knowing it, etc.

I guarantee you that if a pink unicorn comes to you and reveals knowledge that you were previously unaware of, you are not going to be looking at pink unicorns the same way again.

But if I see a coin flip heads in a row 100 times, and my entire classroom also sees exactly the same thing, I have much more confidence that my experience truly reflects what objectively happened.

If your dog teaches you how to make tomato soup from mashed potatoes, and it works, then that is all the confirmation you need to confirm that you are communicating with an intelligence that appears as an other.

Furthermore, in the case of a purely internal/mental event (talking to spirits), we have a competing interpretation that is much more likely because it fits with other events we have well verified: those other events are the internal monologue that our minds routinely carry out. The experience of a voice in the head is much closer to the routine experience of our own voices in our heads than it is to the experience of a spirit talking to us, a conclusion for which we have no other good verification. So it's more reasonable to assume that the experience is actually some variation of what we already know happens than it something that depends on elements (spirits) for which we have no good independent verification.

That's a very personal statement and your own philosophy. It's reasonable to you, and that's fine with me. It's also just reductionism applied to philosophy of mind and I believe not very enlightening.

Many people think that once we can say 'oh, it's just in the mind' we have somehow solved the problem and removed the mystery. The mind is one of the most mysterious things in the universe. Imagination is just as bizarre as any other supernatural event.

Things like Ayahuasca and DMT show us we still have a long way to go until we understand consciousness.

 

[Trent Wray]

ow it that a problem, and how is that any different than any other cognitive process that produces ideas, of which translate into results? Or am I missing something here?

i guess it depends upon how you came to the conclusion that it would be a worthwhile experience to have, no?

For example, if people are achieving clarity from drinking ayahuasca, then it would seem practical to continue.

If some people are deeply curious about their own consciousness and wish to experience more subtle areas, then it would seem practical to go to the source and try ayahuasca.

If some people are intrigued that they have DMT in their own neuro-pharmacology - and it has been shown that this molecule is responsible for profound mystical, mythic, and near death experiences, then trying ayahuasca seems practical.

If someone does not value that sort of adventure, and prefers a more hard knock book read approach to find inspiration and reflection, then I imagine it would not seem very practical.

I REALLY like that question and one I have thought about often. Maybe there is NO distinction between spirits and ideas. Perhaps the distinction is merely semantics and culture, cosmology and philosophy. After all, in german, 'spirit' translates as 'giest' which is also used to describe 'mind'. If this is the case, then what 'basket' does the baby fall in? Perhaps we live in a field of 'spirits', self reflecting and self teaching, a purely subjective field that we all participate in unknowingly, or perhaps it just a function of our brains that deliver us a vast library of intelligences, some intergalactic in nature along side a very rational thinking process.

Either way, we are left with a set of very profound experience that through history have shown utility.

I think it is irrelevant in one sense to either their subjective or objective nature. The fact is if one does certain things, certain other things will happen. Just because it is a spirt, it does not mean the spirit knows what it is talking about. Conversely - just because it is an idea in our heads, it doesn't make it objectively true.

Not a question I can answer, other than relaying reports of shamans in the amazon, who say they are aware of spirits without the ayahuasca, but when they take the ayahuasca, it is like applying a microscope to get a better view.

Well I hope you are a skeptic if that happens to you! I imagine you still would have to apply critical thinking. If a spirit tells you "Intelligence is Self Teaching", you can obviously apply logic, critical thinking, to test the validity of the phrase on it's own merits.

well, I can say that in the Amazon, this is a concern and where the 'icaros' and rituals come in, because you want to avoid the malicious spirits, and bring in the healing spirits. It takes years of initiation to be able to do this.

I think one can remain completely agnostic, skeptical, and open minded and simply enjoy and appreciate the experience without attaching a firm truth value one way or another.

The drug does what the drug does ... it causes hallucinations. If this is how people want to experience parts of life to understand this or that, then that's their choice.

And if the drug is non-addicting and wouldn't alter my mental state (or cause negative physical side-effects) to where I could be walking around and all of a sudden enter a hallucination completely apart from the drug, I would make a go of it. Why not? Hallucinating and imagining can be fun to some people.

And I might get inspired by the experience. Who knows? BUT ... I also get inspired from going to a movie, looking at art, reading a book, traveling, exploring fact and fiction both. It's my preferences and choices at work. I'm introspective and can go as deep in a conversation as anyone I know as well. So to spend the money on the drug when I could easily turn on the TV ... seems cheaper and quicker, not to mention the "side effects" I don't have to worry about (which I haven't studied up on and am speaking from a stance of biasness I have towards medicinal substances in general).

So I don't think it's fair to say that others who don't turn to drugs are choosing the "hard knock" way to learn about their consciousness or get inspired. If I want to turn to a magic 8 ball to get answers to life, again ... it's cheaper and easier. I don't have to go through years of initiation to use one. I don't have to swallow what I've read tastes like vomit to do so either.

Now, to claim that the drug takes you to "the source" or that one actually does talk with spirits and such, needs proof. Otherwise, it is a hallucinatory experience and that's it. It's a more vivid and interactive "mind-f***" than other forms of inspiration, yes? But you cannot prove the "spirits" are anything other than constructs of your mind.

What would be interesting, is to have someone take it who not only has zero belief in spirits, etc and so forth, but they are extremely anti-woo. It's not even something they hope is a reality on any level. I wonder what they would see during their trip? Is there any cases of this? And I wouldn't consider someone who sought it out to try it but claimed, "before I took it I didn't know what I'd see, since I don't really believe in __________," as a reliable example, because they sought it out to experience something regardless. No doubt if I took it, I would have some pretty mind-blowing stuff to report back (my imagination has no off switch) and would also have some deep and pseudo-deep insights to share.

 

[PixyMisa]

If some people are intrigued that they have DMT in their own neuro-pharmacology - and it has been shown that this molecule is responsible for profound mystical, mythic, and near death experiences, then trying ayahuasca seems practical.

If dimethyltryptamine is responsible for these "mystical, mythic, and near death experiences" then they are no more profound than a coffee enema.

If someone does not value that sort of adventure, and prefers a more hard knock book read approach to find inspiration and reflection, then I imagine it would not seem very practical.

I have ingested many varieties of plant over the past few decades, including their roots, nuts, berries, fruits, leaves, bark, seeds and sprouts. Curiously, none of the plants that didn't contain known psychoactive compounds elicited visitations from talkative spirits.

I REALLY like that question and one I have thought about often. Maybe there is NO distinction between spirits and ideas. Perhaps the distinction is merely semantics and culture, cosmology and philosophy. After all, in german, 'spirit' translates as 'giest' which is also used to describe 'mind'. If this is the case, then what 'basket' does the baby fall in? Perhaps we live in a field of 'spirits', self reflecting and self teaching, a purely subjective field that we all participate in unknowingly, or perhaps it just a function of our brains that deliver us a vast library of intelligences, some intergalactic in nature along side a very rational thinking process.

Or, more simply: Spirits aren't real.

Either way, we are left with a set of very profound experience that through history have shown utility.

No.

I think it is irrelevant in one sense to either their subjective or objective nature. The fact is if one does certain things, certain other things will happen. Just because it is a spirt, it does not mean the spirit knows what it is talking about.

Right. Beause spirits aren't real.

Conversely - just because it is an idea in our heads, it doesn't make it objectively true.

Also true.

Not a question I can answer, other than relaying reports of shamans in the amazon, who say they are aware of spirits without the ayahuasca, but when they take the ayahuasca, it is like applying a microscope to get a better view.

And do these spirits ever tell us anything we don't already know? (Hint: The answer is no.)

well, I can say that in the Amazon, this is a concern and where the 'icaros' and rituals come in, because you want to avoid the malicious spirits, and bring in the healing spirits. It takes years of initiation to be able to do this.

No, anyone can do this; or more precisely, no-one can. It has no effect beyond placebo.

I think one can remain completely agnostic, skeptical, and open minded and simply enjoy and appreciate the experience without attaching a firm truth value one way or another.

Which is no excuse for failing to recognise utter nonsense.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think your missing the point I was making, and my apologies if my point was not clearly stated by myself. If we have vast and extensive cultures who have histories dating back millennia, who 'talk to spirits' because they actually have experiences where it is reasonable to interpret it that way, then it is reasonable for them to claim that. If you drink ayahuasca your whole life, and every-time a giant anaconda tells you how to make different medicines from various plants in your environment, it's reasonable to say that a spirit told you how to make it, since you didn't have that knowledge previously.

This doesn't happen.

 

[Paul2]

If you drink ayahuasca your whole life, and every-time a giant anaconda tells you how to make different medicines from various plants in your environment, it's reasonable to say that a spirit told you how to make it, since you didn't have that knowledge previously.

The difference is whether there is ever any independent verification. If I dream about pink unicorns every night, that regularity doesn't mean they really exist.

Now if your dog comes up to you and speaks to you each and every single time, and tells you things you have no knowledge of, and then you can provide your own verification to the knowledge's truth value, then it is reasonable to claim your dog talks to you.

Still missing independent verification (as well as confirmation bias and not examining other possibilities.

I guarantee you that if a pink unicorn comes to you and reveals knowledge that you were previously unaware of, you are not going to be looking at pink unicorns the same way again.

What exactly is this knowledge that spirits have given people that they didn't know before?

That's a very personal statement and your own philosophy. It's reasonable to you, and that's fine with me. It's also just reductionism applied to philosophy of mind and I believe not very enlightening.

Not at all, it's a statement of what is reasonable to believe, Occam's razor, etc.

 

[Limbo]

The difference is whether there is ever any independent verification. If I dream about pink unicorns every night, that regularity doesn't mean they really exist.

I know you only use an example but if you dream about pink unicorns every night, then your unconscious mind is trying to tell you something. But what?

The unconscious speaks in symbolic forms and images. It's not random if one dreams about it that much. Some part of the dreamer mind (an archetype) has taken the form of a pink unicorn in dreams. But why?

Pink unicorns don't exist. But the part of the dreamers mind the pink unicorn represents DOES exist. See, the form is secondary. We must look past the literal form in order to understand the grammar of symbolism. In this case, the unicorn is an alchemical symbol.

 

[WWHP]

The drug does what the drug does ... it causes hallucinations. If this is how people want to experience parts of life to understand this or that, then that's their choice.

agreed

And if the drug is non-addicting and wouldn't alter my mental state (or cause negative physical side-effects) to where I could be walking around and all of a sudden enter a hallucination completely apart from the drug, I would make a go of it. Why not? Hallucinating and imagining can be fun to some people.

'fun' is not a word I would use to describe the experience, but I follow your point

And I might get inspired by the experience. Who knows? BUT ... I also get inspired from going to a movie, looking at art, reading a book, traveling, exploring fact and fiction both. It's my preferences and choices at work. I'm introspective and can go as deep in a conversation as anyone I know as well. So to spend the money on the drug when I could easily turn on the TV ... seems cheaper and quicker, not to mention the "side effects" I don't have to worry about (which I haven't studied up on and am speaking from a stance of biasness I have towards medicinal substances in general).

no side effects from ayahuasca

So I don't think it's fair to say that others who don't turn to drugs are choosing the "hard knock" way to learn about their consciousness or get inspired.

not meant as a put down by any means - just showing one approach as opposed to another approach. Me, I do both approaches, I am both hard knock and experiential.

If I want to turn to a magic 8 ball to get answers to life, again ... it's cheaper and easier. I don't have to go through years of initiation to use one. I don't have to swallow what I've read tastes like vomit to do so either.

your choice - your framework

Now, to claim that the drug takes you to "the source" or that one actually does talk with spirits and such, needs proof.

but the proof is in the experience - since we cannot even prove or disprove the existence of mundane consciousness, insisting on objective proof for any claim regarding consciousness is a tall order that cannot be filled.

Otherwise, it is a hallucinatory experience and that's it. It's a more vivid and interactive "mind-f***" than other forms of inspiration, yes?

It's seems you are finding comfort in simply summarizing it with a tag like -hallucination. On ayahuasca, you can experience and observer your own brain functioning, your own cells communicating with one another. And you may not even hallucinate at all in the process.

But you cannot prove the "spirits" are anything other than constructs of your mind.

true, nor am I claiming that

What would be interesting, is to have someone take it who not only has zero belief in spirits, etc and so forth, but they are extremely anti-woo. It's not even something they hope is a reality on any level. I wonder what they would see during their trip? Is there any cases of this?

You should read Steve Beyer's book, 'Singing to the Plants'. He goes into that. Such a person may need to have a few ceremonies before they experience any visions whatsoever. I would recommend that they just go and try a straight DMT hit - that should do it.

And I wouldn't consider someone who sought it out to try it but claimed, "before I took it I didn't know what I'd see, since I don't really believe in __________," as a reliable example, because they sought it out to experience something regardless. No doubt if I took it, I would have some pretty mind-blowing stuff to report back (my imagination has no off switch) and would also have some deep and pseudo-deep insights to share.

It's a personal journey - that's really all it is. If it interests you, try it, if it doesn't, don't. It's a paradigm shattering experience and worthwhile from my POV, but that's just me, I'm an eccentric

There is a place that we can go that transcends language, an experience of pure being that is beyond what can be summarized into any phrase or explanation. That is a place I like to go. I am a critical thinker as well, so I don't mind the analytical approach whatsoever and I remain a WTF agnostic to this day.

Take care!

 

[WWHP]

If dimethyltryptamine is responsible for these "mystical, mythic, and near death experiences" then they are no more profound than a coffee enema.

well I am assuming you have had a coffee enema as while as all of the above to make such a declaration.

You cannot objectify 'profound' based on something you think you understand regarding neuropharmacology

I have ingested many varieties of plant over the past few decades, including their roots, nuts, berries, fruits, leaves, bark, seeds and sprouts. Curiously, none of the plants that didn't contain known psychoactive compounds elicited visitations from talkative spirits.

Therefore?

Or, more simply: Spirits aren't real.

well the certainly are real experiences. just like ideas themselves are real experiences, yet we have absolutely NO proof that ideas exist, what they are, or what they could possibly be composed of. Ideas, to me, are just as mysterious as 'spirits', and I often play with the idea that there may be no distinction other than culture and cosmology.

No.


Right. Beause spirits aren't real.

Your making some pretty extraordinary claims, offering no transparent process to provide how you came to your conclusion, nor are you even bothering to define what 'spirits' are or must be for them to Not exist.

Keep in mind, I am not trying to convince you they do exist! I actually don't care if you think they do or do not. That's your own philosophy. I am just eager to see if you can bring anything interesting to the table and the discussion.

Keep trying

And do these spirits ever tell us anything we don't already know? (Hint: The answer is no.)


No, anyone can do this; or more precisely, no-one can. It has no effect beyond placebo.


Which is no excuse for failing to recognise utter nonsense.

Again, your simply making claims that are faith based on your cosmology and philosophy. Reductionism implies they MUST not exist - so therefore they do not. You are providing no elegant deconstruction, no critical analysis, and no direct experience with the process. All your doing is deny deny deny - that's not critical thinking, that's called fundamentalism.

and a bit boring...

 

[WWHP]

If we have vast and extensive cultures who have histories dating back millennia, who 'talk to spirits' because they actually have experiences where it is reasonable to interpret it that way, then it is reasonable for them to claim that. If you drink ayahuasca your whole life, and every-time a giant anaconda tells you how to make different medicines from various plants in your environment, it's reasonable to say that a spirit told you how to make it, since you didn't have that knowledge previously.

This doesn't happen.

:facepalm:

Please return to your seat and read up a bit more on critical thinking, remove any illusions you have that denying the existence or non existence of something equals critical thinking, and try a coffee enema