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

[PixyMisa]

oh here we go.... someone please, drain my blood.

I don't see why you think that will help, but I won't stop you.

I refer to you my last discussion with Paul2, who grasped the obvious and if he can do it, so can you.

Everything you have said in this thread has been nonsense. Some people will pat you on the head when they manage to tease on tiny sliver of half-sense free from the thicket of baloney. (Okay, so my metaphors could use a little work.) I think that's condescending and does you a disservice. That's why I have taken the time to point out that your ideas are worthless and your expression of them incoherent - and because I actually careabout the advancement of human understanding.

EDIT: Oh yeah, chew on this for a bit next time you claim there is no hard problem in consciousness.

http://tinyurl.com/yc4wlpc

Do automated Google searches represent the entirety of your erudition? It appears to be so, because if you had actually bothered to read any of that material, you would have found that the so-called "hard problem" is widely dismissed as completely without merit.

But I'm sure your right.

It's not so much that I'm right (though I happen to be so in this instance); it's that the entire field of neuroscience proves you wrong in every possible way.

 

[Trent Wray]

Every now and then I'm tempted to ask if I'm looking at a conversation taking place between a married couple ...

 

[PixyMisa]

Every now and then I'm tempted to ask if I'm looking at a conversation taking place between a married couple ...

Heh.

I do seem to get on people's nerves when I point out that everything they have said is wrong.

But, well, them's the breaks; they just need to try to be less wrong.

 

[Nick227]

Yes, I have stated that consciousness is considered science's hard problem. That certainly is not a unique claim nor a phrase. And I can see how it could be potentially confusing position to have, if I do believe that (which I do) and still be a strong proponent of AI and a futurist.

Yes, it would be good to see you reconcile the two perspectives. Are you contemplating a robot with a soul?

My problem with consciousness and brain research is more philosophical, being a deconstructionist, I find the language used to describe conscious networks to be a bit suspicious and open to misinterpretation. For example, in the project you sited, the usage of the word theatre with the description of a theatre, but with the caveat that there is no theatre in any concrete way, yet it depends upon the relationship of a theatre, the description of a theatre, yet with no audience, to describe it. This is argued to distinguish, I assume Dennet's 'Cartesian Theatre' of which I have the same problems with. If there is no audience, not sure how valuable using a theatre reference is. I have heaps of problems with that sort of stuff, but still working through it.

I guess the metaphor works for most, because we all know what a theatre looks like. And then it's...but there's no audience! I find it OK really.

I think the underlying issue is always Self. It seems as though there must be an observer or experiencer inside the brain, but there isn't. Selfhood is just an emergent phenomenon, yet it appears so convincingly to be tangible that issues like "hard problem" appear to be concrete.

Personally, I have not found anything that can give me something satisfactory regarding 'experience' - only what the brain is doing when having one, not what makes the brain conscious or unconscious. And to me that is where the hard problems lay, because consciousness is a strange loop - there is something 'dimensional' ( i use that word loosely) going on in the realm of our direct experience that does not seem to be accounted for in brain activity

Yes, it sure seems like that.

, and by accounted for, I do not mean the neurons firing, I know that they fire in relationship to experience, and experience is effected by their firing, but I don't experience networks firing when I make love my girlfriend, I experience something that can be called 'romantic love'. I only experience networks firing when I am looking at them in a laboratory.

For sure.

very interesting! is there something you can point me to on that? I would love to look at the numbers in the control group.

Well, people do therapy and subjectively report feeling better. Of course hard scientists will never be so convinced by this. With drugs, I can't recall Strassman's exact experiment. I recall he got a license to administer DMT, no easy thing in the US! And he did write up the results.

BTW, it was once reported that the brain also produces DMT, but I don't know if this has been backed up nowadays. There's a ton of interesting research that could be done on drug states and just what drugs are doing to the brain to make stuff seem like it does, but progress is slow because of the political/commercial issues. Same old ****.

Nick

 

[rorylee]

sure, here is the center I plan on attending, and can vouch for.

http://www.espiritudeanaconda.org/

Awesome thank you!

 

[Nick227]

When a person, group or culture says a phenomenon has a mystical explanation it doesn't mean that aid phenomenon doesn't exist, or that it can't be explained by something that is not mystical.

Yes, it simply means that they are ignorant and wrong.

Or telling fibs to bring in gullible tourists.

It can mean that they are ignorant and/or wrong, or that they or the "shaman" is exploiting people. But, given the lack of neuroscientific knowledge in traditional cultures it can also be that it is something that does work to provide psychological integrity to individuals and the group. (Of course the flip side is that the group now remain firmly convinced that the "lizard god" or whatever does actually exist).

Indeed, neuroscience, whilst offering a means to rationally understand mystical experiences as brain phenomena, does not necessarily allow the individual to benefit from the experience at a psychological level. So what a bunch of neurons are firing in a part of your amydala where not a great deal has happened lately? This also doesn't give someone so much. The experience is offering the individual the opportunity to gain in self-awareness and become more whole. It has to be framed somehow.

Nick

 

[Trent Wray]

Heh.

I do seem to get on people's nerves when I point out that everything they have said is wrong.

But, well, them's the breaks; they just need to try to be less wrong.

Oh so you do have marriage experience

 

[WWHP]

Yes, it would be good to see you reconcile the two perspectives. Are you contemplating a robot with a soul?

ahh, well I have been working on a reconciliation for quite some time, still playing with a few ideas. Actually, my work with ayahuasca is also connected with that.

A futurist has to look at things comprehensively, so consciousness becomes tethered to cosmology, cosmology becomes tethered to philosophy, philosophy becomes tethered to biology, and biology then back to cosmology. Not many people in the humanities or sciences tend to think that way, it's usually very field centric.

So to summarize what I am playing with, the idea that consciousness and intelligence is an eternal component of universe itself, with material reality creating it, and it creating material reality, a meta strange loop. I don't need anything more than hard Neo Darwinism and classical cosmology to explain how that is not only possible, but most likely. But still not ready to write that paper yet, a few more years of research and study perhaps.

I'm not sure how appreciated the futurist perspective is on these matters. Futurism is a humanist philosophy that can allow for a transcendent while maintaining pure agnosticism. I am an agnostic when it comes to many philosophical issues, I find the value, as Richard Feynman put it, of 'sitting on the fence', and personally I believe agnosticism is the place for the scientist to maintain, and is the only ideology that has a place in science without potentially corrupting it.

I guess the metaphor works for most, because we all know what a theatre looks like. And then it's...but there's no audience! I find it OK really.

Well the purpose of a theatre finds itself in duality, passive and active, observer and observed, and both can switch roles! so invoking a duality to prove there is none just seems incomprehensible at face value. Plus, consider that the theatre metaphor is used with the caveat that there is absolutely no theatre or anything that can be perceived as one, so to me it seems like a half baked metaphor that disqualifies itself for the sake of avoiding the problems of Cartesian Dualism.

But that's another paper I am working on

I think the underlying issue is always Self. It seems as though there must be an observer or experiencer inside the brain, but there isn't.

Well there doesn't seem to be ;-) from the POV of neuroscience. (see, we can play that both ways, thus the hard problem).

Plus, to me self is tricky to define. Self can still be an illusion and still exist, so it's very tricky.

Selfhood is just an emergent phenomenon, yet it appears so convincingly to be tangible that issues like "hard problem" appear to be concrete.

Selfhood appears] as an emergent phenomenon.

Yes, it sure seems like that.

exactly, we both can walk down a two way street, which leads me back to my fence sitting position and agnosticism at this point.

Well, people do therapy and subjectively report feeling better. Of course hard scientists will never be so convinced by this. With drugs, I can't recall Strassman's exact experiment. I recall he got a license to administer DMT, no easy thing in the US! And he did write up the results.

ahh, okay. Strassman is closer to my position on a number of matters philosophically.

BTW, it was once reported that the brain also produces DMT, but I don't know if this has been backed up nowadays. There's a ton of interesting research that could be done on drug states and just what drugs are doing to the brain to make stuff seem like it does, but progress is slow because of the political/commercial issues. Same old ****.

Nick

Really? There is research which suggests it's not produced in the brain? Would love to hear that and learn more, because that is the wonderful falsifiable I am seeking in a few of my 'theories'.

Thanks again Nick! indeed a pleasure.

 

[WWHP]

Every now and then I'm tempted to ask if I'm looking at a conversation taking place between a married couple ...

lol, well I keep asking her but you know how crazy women can be ;-)

 

[WWHP]

It can mean that they are ignorant and/or wrong, or that they or the "shaman" is exploiting people. But, given the lack of neuroscientific knowledge in traditional cultures it can also be that it is something that does work to provide psychological integrity to individuals and the group. (Of course the flip side is that the group now remain firmly convinced that the "lizard god" or whatever does actually exist).

ahhh, well now we are getting to some juicy stuff. Yes it would appear those would be the only options to our western paradigm, but the ironic thing is that shamans, which I don't like to use that word because it's not their word, but shamans provide efficacy that is empirical, they are the ones that have created, concocted so many plant medicines that our own western pharmacology has adopted under the umbrella of the ayahuasca experience. So it transcends what you mention above, or should I say, it descends what you have written above.

Indeed, neuroscience, whilst offering a means to rationally understand mystical experiences as brain phenomena, does not necessarily allow the individual to benefit from the experience at a psychological level. So what a bunch of neurons are firing in a part of your amydala where not a great deal has happened lately? This also doesn't give someone so much. The experience is offering the individual the opportunity to gain in self-awareness and become more whole. It has to be framed somehow.

Nick

In a state of super agreement with my new pal Nick

 

[WWHP]

Everything you have said in this thread has been nonsense.

Wonderful! If true, then you now finally have an opportunity to create some credibility for yourself.

Copied below are my repeated 'claims' and only 'clams' I have put forth regarding the actual TOPIC of this discussion.

1.)Reports are consistent regarding DMT, Ayahausca with communicating with some 'other' intelligence. I have supplied links to both books (DMT the Spirit Molecule, Singing to the Plants) which give critical reporting on experiments and studies of such phenomenon). I will also add to more books which detail this information, 'The Cosmic Serpent, by Jeremy Narby, and 'Supernatural' by Graham Hancock, which deliver anecdotal stories traced throughout history.

I dont expect you to go buy those books and read them and come back to me, but considering that my claim is common knowledge, it can be found by doing a topic search yourself online via google.

2.) That these experiences are very real, and a 'paranormal' experience may not be material in nature for it to be defined as a paranormal experience. A paranormal experience appears to break the laws of physics as we understand them, but it may be an illusion.

Those are my claims and the only claims I am interested in supporting from my own honest experience and the information provided in 1.)

Now, not only do you have to show where everything I have written on this is nonsense, then you have to show that to my quote above. But your tireless and nagging dedication to your own private idaho does not end there, for now you have to show me how everything Paul2 has said in commentary to my quote above is also 'nonsense'.

and so Paul2 says:

This is not controversial that reports could be consistent, so I readily accept this claim. Many people have reported experiences very similar to each others' during hallucinations, for instance, that everyone agrees is purely subjective, so this is not controversial.

2.) This claim is not controversial, either, taking these experiences purely as (subjective) experiences. Again, I interpret this claim as not making a statement about the objective reality of the content of those experiences, beyond any internal, subjective experience. That is, it's objectively true that I like the experience of drinking wine, but that doesn't mean that drinking wine is objectively pleasing.

3.) If, by "paranormal experience," you mean a (subjective) experience whose content breaks the laws of physics as we know them, this is not controversial, either, as the same thing happens routinely in dreams.

4.) I don't even see why these claims need to be supported beyond common knowledge.

Nothing to see here, move along. .

See darling, we can have that threesome we have always talked about.

Some people will pat you on the head when they manage to tease on tiny sliver of half-sense free from the thicket of baloney. (Okay, so my metaphors could use a little work.) I think that's condescending and does you a disservice. That's why I have taken the time to point out that your ideas are worthless and your expression of them incoherent - and because I actually careabout the advancement of human understanding.

Oh wow, you also have a messiah complex - you certainly are a complex lady I do admit.
Just get over here and kiss me will ya?

Do automated Google searches represent the entirety of your erudition?

Well you can verify that yourself. Simply go back through this entire thread and count how many links to google I have provided, then count the number of statements, phrases, and responses I have made sans links, and voila! Intelligence is Self Teaching indeed.

It appears to be so, because if you had actually bothered to read any of that material, you would have found that the so-called "hard problem" is widely dismissed as completely without merit.

I know certain distinctions in semantics are completely over your current level of understanding, but you can't expect me to be confused by the difference between an interpretation of data and and data itself. Plus, if you actually read them, many of them do not 'dismiss' the hard problem, but attempt to 'tackle' the hard problem. Problem is, very few of them agree with each other's conclusions. But somehow you agree with all of them. How's that for batsh*t crazy

It's not so much that I'm right (though I happen to be so in this instance); it's that the entire field of neuroscience proves you wrong in every possible way.

let's elevate our discussion to video chat? I want to see the smile on that pickle.

 

[Nick227]

Well the purpose of a theatre finds itself in duality, passive and active, observer and observed, and both can switch roles! so invoking a duality to prove there is none just seems incomprehensible at face value. Plus, consider that the theatre metaphor is used with the caveat that there is absolutely no theatre or anything that can be perceived as one, so to me it seems like a half baked metaphor that disqualifies itself for the sake of avoiding the problems of Cartesian Dualism.

Personally, I think that Bernard Baars was left with trying to explain his vision and this was the easiest way he could come up with. I think it is quite clever in a way, for we are so conditioned to believe that there must be some Self inside observing, we inevitably start with this theatre metaphor. Then he says "Now, take the audience away!" Even Dennett came around in the end.

Well there doesn't seem to be ;-) from the POV of neuroscience. (see, we can play that both ways, thus the hard problem).

Self can still be an illusion and still exist, so it's very tricky.

I don't see it as so tricky. For me there is a clear rational explanation with our existing paradigm of scientific rationalism/materialism. It's just that this explanation is so strongly counter-intuitive that it freaks people out! And they prefer to zoom off into fantasy-ville.

Selfhood appears as an emergent phenomenon.

Did you find an observing or experiencing self within the brain?

Thanks again Nick! indeed a pleasure.

No probs!

Nick

 

[Trent Wray]

lol, well I keep asking her but you know how crazy women can be ;-)

Yes I can see that It's like watching a "skeptic" and "woo" mating ritual . Or perhaps its a type of greeting that takes time, like two dogs sniffing each other's butts ...

 

[WWHP]

Personally, I think that Bernard Baars was left with trying to explain his vision and this was the easiest way he could come up with. I think it is quite clever in a way, for we are so conditioned to believe that there must be some Self inside observing, we inevitably start with this theatre metaphor. Then he says "Now, take the audience away!" Even Dennett came around in the end.

but that's the problem, you take the audience away and you take the theatre away by default. It's like using females to explain the difference between men and women, and then claim that females arn't necessary. I am still digesting all of this so I am not hard set on my position, I am still learning here and that is how I value your insight a bit. It's hard when your simply a philosopher, it's harder for me to see how the brain researchers see it, which is always what I try to do.


In response to defining a self because it is both an illusion and an object...

I don't see it as so tricky.

I would love to see then how you define self, and if you don't see it so tricky, I definitely want to go to the same parties you do.

For me there is a clear rational explanation with our existing paradigm of scientific rationalism/materialism. It's just that this explanation is so strongly counter-intuitive that it freaks people out! And they prefer to zoom off into fantasy-ville.

Well, that's what I hear from a certain crowd, that may be what you believe but I am still holding my skepticism. The whole thing freaks me out, I don't know what is freakier, a purely material reality or one with a transcendent.

Did you find an observing or experiencing self within the brain?

hmmm, well the short answer to that is yes, but it is confusing because I am not sure what you mean by 'self' yet, and also i have the benefit of consciousness exploration using a wide variety of methods for over 20 years, so personally and dependently, yes I have experienced or observed a 'self'. I am prepared for the bizarre philosophical discussion which may follow this statement. If your crazy enough to go there so will I


Until then!

 

[WWHP]

Yes I can see that It's like watching a "skeptic" and "woo" mating ritual . Or perhaps its a type of greeting that takes time, like two dogs sniffing each other's butts ...

ha, well I know you are joking, but I hope you do not consider me a 'woo' as I practice a very profound state of skepticism and skepticism is fully exalted in WTF agnosticism

I much prefer 'eccentric'

 

[Trent Wray]

ha, well I know you are joking, but I hope you do not consider me a 'woo' as I practice a very profound state of skepticism and skepticism is fully exalted in WTF agnosticism

I much prefer 'eccentric'

I knew you might say that LOL. I meant no offense on my end though. It's all a matter of perspective. To some you might be a woo, to others' you might be a skeptic.

I've always preferred "human" myself. But the joke wouldn't have worked quite as well (not that it worked anyway) ...

 

[Sunsneezer]

ahhh, well now we are getting to some juicy stuff. Yes it would appear those would be the only options to our western paradigm, but the ironic thing is that shamans, which I don't like to use that word because it's not their word, but shamans provide efficacy that is empirical, they are the ones that have created, concocted so many plant medicines that our own western pharmacology has adopted under the umbrella of the ayahuasca experience. So it transcends what you mention above, or should I say, it descends what you have written above.

That's right, a lot of ancient knowledge and superstition is actually useful even if the theory that support it is woo. Through thousands of years of observation, trial and error and oral tradition, tribal medicines have been developed all over the world and since has been looked into by pharmacology, who discovered a lot of useful things.

But just to be sure...

You do realize that the ancient way of obtaining wisdom is closer to religion than science (Still according to the western paradigm)? And that the empirical, testable property of the medicines developed by pharmacology from traditional knowledge does not necessarily validate the stories and superstitions that first promoted those medicine as empirical themselves?

But then, that's not what you are after yourself, because you are interested in consciousness, artificial intelligence and universal theories. What you are producing is not empirical research, it is metaphysics.

To reiterate my own experience with hallucinogenics, it did change my own perspective, too. Salvia made me realize how much I take for granted that my perception of the world and reality are the solid base of my consciousness. It promptly substituted time and space with a void that gradually filled with a recursive loop of thought patterns that slowly integrated reality inside it then unfold to normalcy.

When I was a kid, in a fleeting instant I understood why people traveling at the speed of light would spend less time traveling than an observer would spend waiting for them to return. Then gone, I didn't know anymore.

After both of these situations, I got the feeling that something very important and special was in my mind. However, I don't think it would be a good idea for me to try and confirm any of this by taking drugs: if it turns out to be as bunk as it now seems while sober, I don't think I would notice it while I'm high and trying to confirm what I felt in my previous experience. So the fleeting irrational thoughts would come that much closer to a full blown delusion with each trip I'd take trying to confirm them.

I guess all I want to say is... be careful, bro!

 

[WWHP]

Did you find an observing or experiencing self within the brain?

k

Hey Nick, I also just wanted to clarify, thinking back I realized some of what I wrote here may be confusing : I am not negating that 'self' can be an emergent property, it just depends upon how you define self and in what terms. I do think that it is possible the consciousness is an emergent property of intelligence. I do consider 'being' to be an emergent system, but I don't think that necessarily needs to support a hard cut materialism. I prefer to use the word 'synergy' how Bucky Fuller coined it, rather than emergence, and I often play with the idea that 'I' am simply the collective output of 'all' myself contributing.

 

[WWHP]

I knew you might say that LOL. I meant no offense on my end though. It's all a matter of perspective. To some you might be a woo, to others' you might be a skeptic.

I've always preferred "human" myself. But the joke wouldn't have worked quite as well (not that it worked anyway) ...

well I found it funny, no worries. hey is that your new born? congrads!! I'm a proud poppa myself - not sure if this is your first one, but if it is, oh man oh man do you gots lotsa joy coming your way!

 

[WWHP]

okay, now we REALLY getting to some of the juicy stuff

That's right, a lot of ancient knowledge and superstition is actually useful even if the theory that support it is woo.

This is a fascinating topic, and one I would love for you and I to reach some agreement on, but to do so, I want to change our language a bit, our words precisely, because although I agree with the value of your statement, I would still make a correction here so we can be a bit more clear.

Ancient systems, and in this discussion, let's focus primarily on 'vegetalismo', which is the traditions of the Amazonian peoples, do not have 'theories' and to present them as theories in some sort of a dialectical exchange with the western paradigm is or can be very misleading. What they have is a framework that is mythic, artistic, and theatrical in nature, and is comprised of stories, songs, and craft. It's not something that they propose may happen, it is something that forms over generations through a practice that produces verifiable results. So we can't consider them as theories, we have to, the best we can, consider them as they consider them to see what they mean.

Also, do we have to be insulting and call them 'woo'? Call it animism, call it shamanism, call it something more proper, respectful, and academic, what have you. Because they produce results, and have and are navigating areas of nature with a very extraordinary point of view that I believe is very valuable on many levels.

If we can agree here, I think it can be a wonderful forum to gain mutual insight.

Through thousands of years of observation, trial and error and oral tradition, tribal medicines have been developed all over the world and since has been looked into by pharmacology, who discovered a lot of useful things.

Again, I agree but we left something out, and that is the role of the ecstatic experience, which is the source of what you write above.

You do realize that the ancient way of obtaining wisdom is closer to religion than science (Still according to the western paradigm)?

Hmmm, again, yes on one hand, meaning I agree the method of obtaining 'knowledge' (won't call it 'wisdom' yet) is absolutely FAR from science, it is very artistic, experienced based, and shares much in common with religion. Religion is actually, in my opinion, a more refined 'emergent' system from shamanism, that had to create larger administrative orders as tribes grew into civilizations.

Knowledge can be obtained from many methods other than science. true knowledge. I think what separates religion, magick, shamanism, or any form of mysticism is an acknowledgment in the creative, artistic element. You can use 'art' to communicate something that is inherently rational. The content may not be rational, but the truth it signifies may be. That's important to consider I believe, from a philosophical place if we want to come into 'wisdom' and 'understanding'.

And that the empirical, testable property of the medicines developed by pharmacology from traditional knowledge does not necessarily validate the stories and superstitions that first promoted those medicine as empirical themselves?

of course it doesn't, but the stories are validating something that is empirical. The stories are used to communicate something empirical, something that is laden with inherent truths, and many stories contain many levels of interpretation. For example, in Western Religion, there are and have been many esoteric societies, religious in nature, that claim to communicate these truths found in Religious stories to initiates only. Cabbala is a great example (please dont confuse this with madonna cabbala :/)

To me this is very interesting, that in ecstatic experiences, 'stories' are 'received' from what appears to be an 'other'. Now I know that experience can be had, I have had plenty, so it's not a shock for me to consider that, my own personal value allows me that certainty. I don't think the question of the 'other' being an objective thing or a subjective thing is where all the juice is, i think the juice is in analyzing where these stories are coming from. they are coming from 'nature'. Julian Jaynes, author of The Origins of Consciousness and the Bi-Cameral Mind (which has had a major influence on Dennet's work) covered this plenty, these stories are from our bi-cameral minds, they are not our conscious thinking self produced. So we have to allow that nature has this creative element, highly creative, and I find that very perplexing, especially when it points to information that is analytical, empirical, rational, practical, and objective.

But then, that's not what you are after yourself, because you are interested in consciousness, artificial intelligence and universal theories.

Well perhaps in that article you read, but over all, I quite enjoy physics, both classical and QM, biology, philosophy, technology (oh so big on tech - the arts and the humanities to name a few.

What you are producing is not empirical research, it is metaphysics.

well you are only basing that on the article. This is just a side hobby My main project is very empirical, but that's not the topic of this discussion. I do shamanism and consciousness in my spare time

To reiterate my own experience with hallucinogenics, it did change my own perspective, too. Salvia made me realize how much I take for granted that my perception of the world and reality are the solid base of my consciousness. It promptly substituted time and space with a void that gradually filled with a recursive loop of thought patterns that slowly integrated reality inside it then unfold to normalcy.

I haven't tried Salvia - but relate to those words used to describe a transcending experience.

When I was a kid, in a fleeting instant I understood why people traveling at the speed of light would spend less time traveling than an observer would spend waiting for them to return. Then gone, I didn't know anymore.

alcoholics call this a moment of clarity

After both of these situations, I got the feeling that something very important and special was in my mind. However, I don't think it would be a good idea for me to try and confirm any of this by taking drugs: if it turns out to be as bunk as it now seems while sober, I don't think I would notice it while I'm high and trying to confirm what I felt in my previous experience. So the fleeting irrational thoughts would come that much closer to a full blown delusion with each trip I'd take trying to confirm them.

Well, I say go for it however you can. I think it is beneficial to clear, rational, and critical thinking to have an ecstatic experience, something that can transcend language and words, to experience the full state of being and simply surrender and pay attention.

I guess all I want to say is... be careful, bro!

Thanks man! you too! I feel very safe with ayahuasca, and other than that, don't put too much else in my body, not a big drinker, maybe a little smoke, but nothing extreme.