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

[WWHP]

I understood from the paper the conflict resolution and communication ideas. But coupling it with the ideas from this thread, I saw more you might have been trying to say.

But fair enough, I'll leave it alone as you asked.

oh for sure it goes deeper, and if you want a private discussion, PM me your email, it's not that I mind talking about it, it's just not the focus of this particular thread.

So is Peru in the sights soon for you or still on hold?

It's still on hold unfortunately, looking to September now. I planed that trip for months, I run my own business, in addition to being a single father, so imagine how much planning that is to find out 12 hours before you leave that you are simply unable to make the flight!

And I was curious if you'd let your child try ayahuasca? And if not, why not? If I may ask.

In Peru, children start drinking ayahuasca at the age of 6 years old! Can you imagine? I can't find the study now, but there was one I read where they tested two groups of children in Peru, those raised in the ayahuasca tradition, and those who did not. I forget the facts and figures, but what ever they were, they were in the positive category for the children raised on ayahuasca, they scored higher in all results.

When would I let my child take ayahuasca? When he felt he was ready and could explain to me his reasons for believing so in a way that made sense. I'm not planning on that anytime soon.

 

[GenghisKhan]

I don't know if it has been mentioned before, but anybody who is interested in "shamanism" of Peru and the use of ayahuasca should read "The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge" by Jeremy Narby. Regardless if you believe in "woo" or not, it is a great read and although obviously a work of opinion, is non-fiction. Jeremy Narby was an anthropologist who worked in South America.

Granted, this book was given to me by my rather "alternatively minded" uncle, so take it with a grain of salt, but some of the ideas presented are certainly compelling.

 

[Brainache]

...

That illusionary voice input is about as real as the conscious computer you are invoking, exists in the exact same space, and is completely allowed for in my model without producing contradictions.

I was trying to use a hypothetical situation. Having grown up reading science fiction, I assume that at some time in the future computers will reach a level of complexity equal to or exceeding that of the human brain. If we ever have computers like that, I also assume (perhaps naively) that they will experience what we call consciousness. In such a case, if the hardware was affected by something that caused the same kinds of halucinations that people experience using ayahuasca, would there be any reason to suppose that the computer was communicating with a higher being (forrest fairy, God, whatever)?

Let's use a more concrete model, yes?

Dark matter is believed by the majority of cosmologists to compose 96% of the universe. It's not composed of any physical element that we know of. Contains no atoms, sub atomic structures, molecules, nothing. It simply does not contain any 'matter' or 'energy' in any sense that any physical science has tested, theorized, or studied. There simply is nothing there that we can currently find. Theories about dark matter exist in the same place that theories about consciousness do.

Is dark matter real?

Dark matter is a theory as far as I can tell, which may or may not apply to what actually exists. Maybe the effects attributed to dark matter are caused by something else entirely (other dimensions, etc). Whereas consciousness is what I am experiencing right now as I type this response.

The collection of organic molecules and water that has the JREF user name of Brainache is functioning in such a way as to produce this emergent phenomena of consciousness. Take away the organic chemistry etc and Brainache's consciousness goes away, like the game of chess disappears when you put the game pieces away.

Or is that just a theory?

 

[WWHP]

I was trying to use a hypothetical situation.

You succeeded.

Having grown up reading science fiction, I assume that at some time in the future computers will reach a level of complexity equal to or exceeding that of the human brain. If we ever have computers like that, I also assume (perhaps naively) that they will experience what we call consciousness.

I'm very familiar with those ideas, and they are no longer science fiction, they are science /futurism. I dig those ideas.

In such a case, if the hardware was affected by something that caused the same kinds of halucinations that people experience using ayahuasca, would there be any reason to suppose that the computer was communicating with a higher being (forrest fairy, God, whatever)?

Ahh, now I get it, I did not see your point clearly before. Well let's take that a bit further. Let's say this problem did not happen with just one conscious computer, but an entire network of conscious computers. After it happens, the conscious computers discover the problem, there was a software issue that needed repairing, and the message was a malfunction.

But then, reports started coming in from other conscious computers in the network, peculiar knowledge was obtained from these errors. The errors started to present themselves as alien conscious computers from a network in another galaxy. No conscious computers could verify that, they just found errors in their network. But the messages kept delivering verifiable data in the same voice of an alien conscious computer network. The messages began producing data that was accurate.

Do the conscious computers continue to believe that the errors are malfunctions if they are producing verifiable data?

Dark matter is a theory as far as I can tell, which may or may not apply to what actually exists.

Most of the data supports the Dark Matter model to account for the fluctuations in gravity fields at galactic and universal levels. There are a few hold outs, a few physicists who don't agree with it, but most do.

Maybe the effects attributed to dark matter are caused by something else entirely (other dimensions, etc). Whereas consciousness is what I am experiencing right now as I type this response.

lol, how do you know you are not experiencing dark matter right now?

The collection of organic molecules and water that has the JREF user name of Brainache is functioning in such a way as to produce this emergent phenomena of consciousness.

Sure, but that's just a story. A belief system. The belief is the data confirms that 100%. I don't think many people who believe that can actually explain it coherently when deconstructed. I think many materialists believe that, but they don't understand it, they just latch on to it because it supports their paradigm. To this day, every materialist I speak with who tries to explain that model produces contradictions.

And it might be true! I'm not denying it, I just can't find any rational explanation of it that remains consistent. When I deconstruct it, it just collapses into another belief system.

Take away the organic chemistry etc and Brainache's consciousness goes away, like the game of chess disappears when you put the game pieces away.

Yes, that is what must happen if what you believe is true. For example, when I die, I must go to hell if what Fundamentalist Christians believe is true.

Or is that just a theory?

It's an idea about the mystery. It's a mysterious idea. It's the only framework materialistic reductionism can allow for. It's the logical conclusion to reductionist materialism. I don't think the reductionist materialistic model of consciousness is likely to be true because reductionism breaks down when encountering a transcendent (whole system) and produces contradictions. Godel's Law of Incompleteness, I believe, insures this must happen in reductionist models of meta structures and properties.

 

[Brainache]

You succeeded.



I'm very familiar with those ideas, and they are no longer science fiction, they are science /futurism. I dig those ideas.

You're freakin' me out man. Does that mean that you agree that such computers are possible?

Ahh, now I get it, I did not see your point clearly before. Well let's take that a bit further. Let's say this problem did not happen with just one conscious computer, but an entire network of conscious computers. After it happens, the conscious computers discover the problem, there was a software issue that needed repairing, and the message was a malfunction.

But then, reports started coming in from other conscious computers in the network, peculiar knowledge was obtained from these errors. The errors started to present themselves as alien conscious computers from a network in another galaxy. No conscious computers could verify that, they just found errors in their network. But the messages kept delivering verifiable data in the same voice of an alien conscious computer network. The messages began producing data that was accurate.

Do the conscious computers continue to believe that the errors are malfunctions if they are producing verifiable data?

Occasionally the malfunctions produce equations like 2+2=4, sometimes they say 2+2=filament tango. I really think you are stretching the analogy way beyond its limits. No one has shown that what the Shamans learn on their "vision quests" or whatever you call them ("trips" to old blokes like me) is anything from outside their own minds. The whole point of my analogy was that messing with your brain chemistry results in weird experiences and messing with a computer's hardware would have analogous results. You take that and give me the end of Neuromancer (a good story, but not real).

Most of the data supports the Dark Matter model to account for the fluctuations in gravity fields at galactic and universal levels. There are a few hold outs, a few physicists who don't agree with it, but most do.



lol, how do you know you are not experiencing dark matter right now?

I'm no physicist, but did I say I wasn't exeriencing dark matter? How is it even relevant to this discussion? Are you saying that Dark Matter is just another belief system? A story told to explain the world?

Sure, but that's just a story. A belief system. The belief is the data confirms that 100%. I don't think many people who believe that can actually explain it coherently when deconstructed. I think many materialists believe that, but they don't understand it, they just latch on to it because it supports their paradigm. To this day, every materialist I speak with who tries to explain that model produces contradictions.

It is simple enough, and it explains all that we experience. Why are you trying to add unnecessary complications to the whole thing?

And it might be true! I'm not denying it, I just can't find any rational explanation of it that remains consistent. When I deconstruct it, it just collapses into another belief system.

Not sure what this means. I don't see any inconsistency.

Yes, that is what must happen if what you believe is true. For example, when I die, I must go to hell if what Fundamentalist Christians believe is true.

If what fundamentalist Christians believe is true, then everybody is in big trouble. Not likely though.

It's an idea about the mystery. It's a mysterious idea. It's the only framework materialistic reductionism can allow for. It's the logical conclusion to reductionist materialism. I don't think the reductionist materialistic model of consciousness is likely to be true because reductionism breaks down when encountering a transcendent (whole system) and produces contradictions. Godel's Law of Incompleteness, I believe, insures this must happen in reductionist models of meta structures and properties.

So conscious computers are impossible? A machine can never be aware?
Seems a bit like organic chauvinism to me.

 

[PixyMisa]

lol, how do you know you are not experiencing dark matter right now?

Because all our senses are based on the electromagnetic force, and dark matter is dark precisely because it doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force.

Sure, but that's just a story. A belief system. The belief is the data confirms that 100%.

The data does confirm it 100%.

I don't think many people who believe that can actually explain it coherently when deconstructed.

Deconstructed? Feel free to try.

I think many materialists believe that, but they don't understand it, they just latch on to it because it supports their paradigm.

No, that is, as usual, entirely backwards.

We reach this conclusion because that is where the evidence leads.

To this day, every materialist I speak with who tries to explain that model produces contradictions.

What contradictions?

It's an idea about the mystery.

What mystery?

It's a mysterious idea.

Mysterious how?

It's the only framework materialistic reductionism can allow for.

No, it's a conclusion from scientific research.

It's the logical conclusion to reductionist materialism.

Scientific research. Reductionist materialism doesn't even postulate the existence of molecules; it was scientific research that discovered their existence.

I don't think the reductionist materialistic model of consciousness is likely to be true because reductionism breaks down when encountering a transcendent (whole system) and produces contradictions.

This is only a problem if this "transcendent" is well-defined and actually exists.

If you introduce an inconsistent concept into a consistent framework, it is not the fault of the framework that inconsistencies result.

Godel's Law of Incompleteness, I believe, insures this must happen in reductionist models of meta structures and properties.

No. Not even remotely.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems prove two related propositions:

1. Any sufficiently powerful formal system contains propositions that cannot be shown to be either true or false by the methods of that system.
2. Any sufficiently powerful formal system contains a proof of its own consistency only if it is inconsistent.

You are just talking rubbish, something that Godel's theorems don't discuss at all.

 

[WWHP]

Dear Pixy Mesa - Glady our conversation is over, although I am flattered that you still want me. However your ideas arn't really that challenging, your unable to follow through in discussion, and you jump around all over the place. Your friend is willing to pick up where you left off, and I will continue with him.

If your interested in continuing a discussion, go back a few posts and address my clear refutations of your irrational belief system. Until then, it makes no sense to continue in a game that your simply unqualified to compete in. Take care.

ETA: You may have a point about Godel - it's just what I believe at this time, it's a belief. I'm still working a few things out regarding it and am not ready to present any argument that can support my statement. I mention it in discussion anecdotally.

 

[WWHP]

You're freakin' me out man. Does that mean that you agree that such computers are possible?

Oh good! I like freaking people out a bit - thank you

Conscious computers are considered possible in modern discourse on AI, Daniel Dennet, a hero to many reductionists here on this thread, considers them most likely, and has even suggested that some computers today may already be conscious in some sense. Some have even suggested that the internet may take on a form of awareness, and my already be sentient.

I personally do not believe that computers will be conscious in any way we understand consciousness within our near future. I may be wrong, I am still digesting a lot of the data.

Occasionally the malfunctions produce equations like 2+2=4, sometimes they say 2+2=filament tango.

So one is accurate data, and the other maybe a poem?

I really think you are stretching the analogy way beyond its limits.

Not really, I merely updated it in the sci-fi analogy you mentioned so it could be useful in this discussion and fit more into what I am referring to with the Ayahuasca experience.

No one has shown that what the Shamans learn on their "vision quests" or whatever you call them ("trips" to old blokes like me) is anything from outside their own minds.

You forgot to add ''...as far as I know''. How much do you know about this topic of discussion? Have you read 'Cosmic Serpent, DNA and the Origins of Knowledge', or 'Singing to the Plants'? How much do you know about Shamanism in the Upper Amazon?

The whole point of my analogy was that messing with your brain chemistry results in weird experiences and messing with a computer's hardware would have analogous results. You take that and give me the end of Neuromancer (a good story, but not real).

Neuromancer is closer to our future than you may be ready for. There is no evidence that ayahuasca messes with brain chemistry. There is only evidence that it is beneficial to well being.

And your point is a very old and tired one, many have made this charge against entheogens and psychedelics. I don't believe those arguments are interesting or informed.

I'm no physicist, but did I say I wasn't exeriencing dark matter? How is it even relevant to this discussion? Are you saying that Dark Matter is just another belief system? A story told to explain the world?

I think if you missed my point here, it's going to take too much work to explain it again so I would rather move on.

It is simple enough, and it [Materialistic models of reality/consciousness] explains all that we experience. Why are you trying to add unnecessary complications to the whole thing?

It does not account for all phenomenon, and there are still plenty of unknowns in physical science - so it does not account for all things we experience, just some things.

Also, I am not 'adding things' or 'multiplying entities'. At a cosmological level, materialism does begin to multiply entities, and needs to create multiple universes to allow for the 'random chance' notion that our universe is fine tuned to support organic life. So please dont charge that I am making things complex, I am keeping things simple and elegant, without producing contradictions, A purely materialistic view of reality may be more unnecessary than you are allowing for.


By the way, where is your argument? Or did you just want to trade opinions?

 

[blobru]

Not sure about that; we only die once, but we each perform many thousands of mind/body experiments over the course of our lives, like getting drunk, getting hit on the head, attempting to extract useful information out of imaginary beings...

True enough. And ironically enough, via chains of mortal brains "Socrates" is "immortal"; though only in the quoted sense, mind you.

... It's an idea about the mystery. It's a mysterious idea. It's the only framework materialistic reductionism can allow for. It's the logical conclusion to reductionist materialism. I don't think the reductionist materialistic model of consciousness is likely to be true because reductionism breaks down when encountering a transcendent (whole system) and produces contradictions. Godel's Law of Incompleteness, I believe, insures this must happen in reductionist models of meta structures and properties.

Among other things, Godel's theorems say all but the simplest consistent axiomatic systems generate truths they cannot prove, and so are incomplete. Which incompleteness is not a problem for reductionism. Just the opposite. Why? Because it shows that very complex, meaningful structures can emerge from quite simple axiomatic systems, structures too complex for the generating system to evaluate. So how are they ever evaluated, then?

Well, consider that some of these complex structures may themselves be systems which can evaluate them. (If higher-level evaluation is an advantage, it should evolve where it can.) Of course, these in turn may generate meaning they can't evaluate, which 'transcends' the system, so to speak; but also systems which can evaluate the new 'transcendent' meaning, and so on. In such an emergent 'Godelian' model, learning could be the continuous generation of novel systems to evaluate increasingly complex truths of this sort.

And literally no limit to it, in principle! Through hierarchies of axiomatic [rule-following] generation, creation of new meaning upon meaning, the most complex truth(s) may reduce to the most simple system(s). Or, in the other direction, from even the humblest beginnings may emerge the most amazing phenomena: from atoms and dna to physics and poetry, from bits of matter to human consciousness, from bitter ayahuasca tea to far-out plant-spirit visions (if you will).

Anyway, that's how materialism, in theory, with a little help from Godel and complexity theory, transcends 'contradiction' (dualism, I assume).

 

[Brainache]

Oh good! I like freaking people out a bit - thank you

No man. I was, like, being ironic. You dig?

Conscious computers are considered possible in modern discourse on AI, Daniel Dennet, a hero to many reductionists here on this thread, considers them most likely, and has even suggested that some computers today may already be conscious in some sense. Some have even suggested that the internet may take on a form of awareness, and my already be sentient.

I personally do not believe that computers will be conscious in any way we understand consciousness within our near future. I may be wrong, I am still digesting a lot of the data.

I believe there is no reason why they can't be.

So one is accurate data, and the other maybe a poem?

One is accurate accidentally and one is nonsense.

Not really, I merely updated it in the sci-fi analogy you mentioned so it could be useful in this discussion and fit more into what I am referring to with the Ayahuasca experience.

So the ayahuasca experience is a load of made up stuff about aliens and such?
I'd like to try it sometime. I like aliens, as long as they aren't the sort who lay eggs inside me.

You forgot to add ''...as far as I know''. How much do you know about this topic of discussion? Have you read 'Cosmic Serpent, DNA and the Origins of Knowledge', or 'Singing to the Plants'? How much do you know about Shamanism in the Upper Amazon?

Nope and not much beyond the kind of stuff I've seen on TV documentaries. Get back to me when a Shaman designs a spaceship, or a TV set, or even a decent pair of pants.

Neuromancer is closer to our future than you may be ready for. There is no evidence that ayahuasca messes with brain chemistry. There is only evidence that it is beneficial to well being.

If it didn't mess with brain chemistry, it wouldn't produce halucinations.

And your point is a very old and tired one, many have made this charge against entheogens and psychedelics. I don't believe those arguments are interesting or informed.

Are you a doctor?

I think if you missed my point here, it's going to take too much work to explain it again so I would rather move on.

Ahh so only those theories that you disagree with are just stories about the world? Dark matter is something else mysterious and fundamental? Not just a theory like that stinky materialism stuff?

It does not account for all phenomenon, and there are still plenty of unknowns in physical science - so it does not account for all things we experience, just some things.

Says you.

Also, I am not 'adding things' or 'multiplying entities'. At a cosmological level, materialism does begin to multiply entities, and needs to create multiple universes to allow for the 'random chance' notion that our universe is fine tuned to support organic life. So please dont charge that I am making things complex, I am keeping things simple and elegant, without producing contradictions, A purely materialistic view of reality may be more unnecessary than you are allowing for.

Multiple universes is just one theory. There are others.

By the way, where is your argument? Or did you just want to trade opinions?

I'm trying to find out what your argument is, beyond "Wow I had some really wild trip in the jungle and the plants spoke to me! They knew exactly what was inside my head! Amazing!!"

 

[Nick227]

It's an idea about the mystery. It's a mysterious idea. It's the only framework materialistic reductionism can allow for. It's the logical conclusion to reductionist materialism. I don't think the reductionist materialistic model of consciousness is likely to be true because reductionism breaks down when encountering a transcendent (whole system) and produces contradictions. Godel's Law of Incompleteness, I believe, insures this must happen in reductionist models of meta structures and properties.

BF, even with my limited knowledge of math I can see that these are deeply dubious statements. How does reductionism struggle with emergence? This is nonsense. That seems to me to be all your notion of "transcendence" is. Yes, systems have properties not possessed by their individual components. Is this really such a big deal in 2010? I don't think so.

For me, you are just creating dualities, pitting one philosophy against another in your mind. And then when anyone calls you on your inconsistencies you politely say Goodbye, meaning I presume, "Look, there's a limit to which I'll allow my pet vision to be questioned and now you're crossing it."

Does it occur to you that you're attached to an inconsistent philosophy for purely personal reasons? I don't think ayahuasca is going to make you any more whole. I think you just need to stop needlessly creating dualisms.

Nick

 

[Limbo]

Anyway, that's how materialism, in theory, with a little help from Godel and complexity theory, transcends 'contradiction' (dualism, I assume).

Um, turtles all the way down?

 

[blobru]

Um, turtles all the way down?

Gödels.

 

[Sunsneezer]

There is no evidence that ayahuasca messes with brain chemistry. There is only evidence that it is beneficial to well being.

Not quite...
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_DMT.shtml

 

[PixyMisa]

True enough. And ironically enough, via chains of mortal brains "Socrates" is "immortal"; though only in the quoted sense, mind you.

It's the only immortality we have, but it's not so bad.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not quite...
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_DMT.shtml

And there's the minor fact that IT CAUSES FREAKING HALLUCINATIONS!!!!!

Ahem.

 

[WWHP]

Among other things, Godel's theorems say all but the simplest consistent axiomatic systems generate truths they cannot prove, and so are incomplete. Which incompleteness is not a problem for reductionism. Just the opposite. Why? Because it shows that very complex, meaningful structures can emerge from quite simple axiomatic systems, structures too complex for the generating system to evaluate. So how are they ever evaluated, then?

Well, consider that some of these complex structures may themselves be systems which can evaluate them. (If higher-level evaluation is an advantage, it should evolve where it can.) Of course, these in turn may generate meaning they can't evaluate, which 'transcends' the system, so to speak; but also systems which can evaluate the new 'transcendent' meaning, and so on. In such an emergent 'Godelian' model, learning could be the continuous generation of novel systems to evaluate increasingly complex truths of this sort.

And literally no limit to it, in principle! Through hierarchies of axiomatic [rule-following] generation, creation of new meaning upon meaning, the most complex truth(s) may reduce to the most simple system(s). Or, in the other direction, from even the humblest beginnings may emerge the most amazing phenomena: from atoms and dna to physics and poetry, from bits of matter to human consciousness, from bitter ayahuasca tea to far-out plant-spirit visions (if you will).

Anyway, that's how materialism, in theory, with a little help from Godel and complexity theory, transcends 'contradiction' (dualism, I assume).

This is incredibly helpful in my understanding blobru! thank you so much. I'm going to digest it a bit.

Question (potentially from ignorance): The higher order of complexity arrives at it's own understanding of the pre-existing order which emerges from it's own complexity -which evolved from a previous order less complex. I get that. Are you saying that a complex system can only evaluate then it's lower order and not it's own? If so, isn't that what I am suggesting as well or no? Isn't the higher ordering complexity implicit at the moment of it's conception of the lower?

Spend a little time with me here my friend - this is extraordinarily helpful to me - and the problem I am having is in framing my query. Not sure how well I have accomplished that. What you are saying seems to fit into a linear system - past to future, but not the other way around or all moments combined. What am I missing or what am I not considering fully?

also, do you need a roommate?

 

[WWHP]

Not quite...
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_DMT.shtml

there is a distinction between DMT and ayahuasca proper. Also, where are the health warnings on that page regarding DMT? Can't find anything. Search erowid for Ayahuasca.

Also, let's consider this very important fact. Ayahuasca has been consumed for millennia in the Amazon basin. Children drink it, pregnant women drink it. Where are the reports of brain damage? We have a test group, so the evidence for any harmful effects of Ayahuasca would be easy to provide. Where is this information?

Ayahuasca has won two landmark Supreme Court rulings here in the US. The DEA tried to argue it's harm at multiple levels of the court system, the court ruled that no sufficient evidence was provided by the DEA to support claims that it was harmful. The Supreme Court is far from a hippy organization. If there truly was evidence that it was harmful, do you not think the DEA would have presented it?

 

[WWHP]

And there's the minor fact that IT CAUSES FREAKING HALLUCINATIONS!!!!!

Ahem.

ahh, well since you have returned to an argument you were supplying before, let me allow you one pass, since this is helpful for the community at large to consider here.

What is wrong with hallucinating in a controlled set and setting? How is that a sign the brain is malfunctioning? How is that harmful? How is that not productive? How did you arrive at the conclusion that hallucinations are brain malfunctions?

Consider that since DMT is already in our brains, it would make sense the malfunction would occur if we did NOT hallucinate on ayahuasca.

Also, we can call them hallucinations, but we can also understand them as profound and meaningful visions, which is how they appear to those having them.

http://www.metafilter.com/75129/The-Ayahuasca-Monologues

 

[WWHP]

No man. I was, like, being ironic. You dig?

See, I dig

I believe there is no reason why they can't be (edit - conscious computers)

cool, just wish you were a real futurist.

One is accurate accidentally and one is nonsense.

Poetry is nonsense when viewed analytically, how do they assume it's not poetry? since they are conscious, I assume you mean conscious in a way we can understand conscious and can allow for creative expression or interpretation.

So the ayahuasca experience is a load of made up stuff about aliens and such?
I'd like to try it sometime. I like aliens, as long as they aren't the sort who lay eggs inside me.

Alien encounters are reported on ayahuasca or DMT. In one of my experiences, I was asked "Would you like to come up in a space ship?" Totally freaked me out.

Nope and not much beyond the kind of stuff I've seen on TV documentaries.

Oh, okay. Well I don't have time to do your research for you. If you find the topic interesting, do a google search or check out those books. The Cosmic Serpent is a great read indeed. Graham Hancock also wrote a book called "Supernatural" another great read on the topic. Or download some talks by Terence Mckenna. http://www.lancerules.com/terence/

They do a much better job than I.

Get back to me when a Shaman designs a spaceship, or a TV set, or even a decent pair of pants.

hah! well at least your funny. I dig the funny people. Sure, let's toss out the large array of pharmacology developed that the west benefits from. Let's not consider one of the more relevant pieces of knowledge in this discussion.

Per your request, I will get back to your queries when the Shipibo indians launch a GPS satellite.

Cheers! thanks for participating in this thread.