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

[TempleJohn]

It was meant to be an argument against the so-called "wisdom of the Ancients". You seem to be assuming that ignorance is a virtue. To me, Mysticism is the practice of worshipping ignorance.

Oof... your whole reply this time around suggests that you have a lot to learn. Please don't take that the wrong way, there's no condescension here. It's just that, to me, your definitions seem quite superficial and poorly researched. For example, mysticism is simply an inherently private process of creative experimentation with consciousness, meant only to further one's personal understanding and perception of identity (i.e. self-realization). That's it. At its core it has nothing to do with beliefs, though these often do result from mystical experiences as attempts to explain the gaps in our knowledge. That's where materialism comes in to balance everything out.

Nick said:

Mysticism is just such a cop out. Materialism is radical and confrontational.

For me they complement each other, like feminine and masculine. Passive and active. Receptive and projective. This is what I mean by choosing sides where there are none. Would you reject females just cuz you're a man? Or vice-versa? Incidentally, I've found many gays to be hardcore materialists (I mean who was really surprised by Randi's news?). Also, did you know that the word 'matter' comes from 'mater'?

Like Bubblefish stated earlier, a lot of this resistance to feminine approaches to learning comes from negative formative experiences with organized religion, which is of course corrupt. I myself was a victim and rejected spirituality for years, but I never stopped asking questions about the world or exploring my own psyche (and the relationship between the "two"), which led me to what I believe is a healthy philosophical balance, a holistic perspective. But to arrive at this point one must first comprehend that the very rejection of 'mysticism' is itself tantamount to dualism.

By the way, Brainache, this what alchemy is all about: harmonizing polarities. Alchemists wrapped their work in multiple mysteries to protect themselves from persecution and protect their 'sacred knowledge' from the 'profane'. There's really nothing mysterious about it, at least not in the sense that it can't be grasped by the alchemical process itself. Plus, if you understand alchemy you understand the basic principles evolution, both natural and cultural. It's happening as we speak!

Book tip: The Chymical Wedding by Lindsay Clarke.

Who is taking money from gullible people by pretending that this mystery doesn't exist?

This is not critical to the argument (nor was your original statement), and I'm not interested in finger-pointing. The finger itself is the topic at hand.

Materialism deals with things as they are.

Right. So why exclude things that are or seem to be, but we have not yet understood?

Idealism deals with things as if they could be perfect.

That's another type of idealism all together, friend! Think pan-psychism.

Dualism divides the brain from the mind and then offers no explanation for how these two "substances" interact.

Silly, isn't it? Just cause we experience polarities, binary systems, etc., doesn't mean these don't share a common cause.

Monism is just this guy, y'know?

I've not had the pleasure. Sure it's not a girl? How about an androgyne?

(In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not actually a Philosopher, I just enjoy these debates.)

Same here

Can you tell me what the bolded part means? It reads like gibberish to me.

Think synchronicity, which to me points to the heart of the matter. If you pursue mystical processes and do not reject the subjective truth of your own experience, you'll eventually see what I mean. The mechanisms of such non-dual phenomena may still be unknown, but the phenomena themselves are more than apparent if we are honest about subjective experience.

Nick said:

Would you be OK with dying if a perfect replica of you took your place?

Great question! I'm OK with dying as it is. If a perfect replica happens to take my place, I reckon nothing would change, assuming the replica is truly perfect. Like I said, self is a matter of perspective. Same lens, same perspective, right?

What would your answer be? Thanks for the welcome!

 

[Rramjet]

What is intelligence? What is material?

If matter IS energy - then matter is an emergent property of energy - just as is intelligence (whatever that is) an emergent property of matter? But what are the conditions under which these properties emerge? Awareness is intelligence (of a kind) but self-awareness is a rare property? It seems many humans barely achieve it. What hope plants?

If my matter is replaced with replica matter, does that mean my experiences are also replaced providing the replica me with the same intelligence (knowledge, persona, etc)? If I were merely cloned, then my experiences would not come with that clone so the clone would not be me and subsequent experience would mold the clone into a different person altogether. But then, am I the same person I was a minute ago? Would the person of a minute ago not swap places with me because I am not the same person? What about an hour, a day, a year...? In ten years every cell in our body has been replaced. What keeps me me?

Continuity of mind? But what about when I faint or am “knocked out”? Who am I if I am under general anaesthetic for surgery? Who am I if I am in a coma?

Who am I if I am under the influence of a drug (medicine, whatever) or altered brain chemistry - like if I am highly aroused or in pain..?

What IS mind? What IS an “emergent property? Can there be a collective emergent property? Are my experiences unique or are they a combination of give and take between the collective and the individual?

Matter can be aware. But can it be self-aware? If matter is energy can energy be aware? Can energy be self-aware? What about plants?

What IS “paranormal”? Is reality merely a consensus opinion?

What can intelligence teach itself? Are we talking about evolution here? What is artificial intelligence? Does my clone count?

…my brain hurts. But how do I know that?

 

[Nick227]

For me they complement each other, like feminine and masculine. Passive and active. Receptive and projective. This is what I mean by choosing sides where there are none. Would you reject females just cuz you're a man? Or vice-versa? Incidentally, I've found many gays to be hardcore materialists (I mean who was really surprised by Randi's news?). Also, did you know that the word 'matter' comes from 'mater'?

I don't really see what any of this has to do with it. But if you want to stick with the same metaphor then remember that the fetus is androgyne until one side dominates. So this polarity that you find exists only later on. Materialism can show you a reality that exists prior to self, prior to polarity. If you are able to follow it to its conclusion this is what it will show you, what exists before "you" exist!

Like Bubblefish stated earlier, a lot of this resistance to feminine approaches

Who's opposed to feminine approaches? There are many female materialists. Why not read Susan Blackmore?

to learning comes from negative formative experiences with organized religion, which is of course corrupt. I myself was a victim and rejected spirituality for years, but I never stopped asking questions about the world or exploring my own psyche (and the relationship between the "two"), which led me to what I believe is a healthy philosophical balance, a holistic perspective. But to arrive at this point one must first comprehend that the very rejection of 'mysticism' is itself tantamount to dualism.

No it isn't. I've been an Osho sannyasin for years. I've done tons of therapy, tantra, energy work and philosophically I'm materialist these days, because materialism can lead you where mysticism cannot - to what exists before this seeming duality. For sure some mystics are aware of non-duality but many are still enmired in the illusions. Virtually all spiritual philosophies are hopelessly bogged down in duality. Spirituality will not survive the further development of brain science because it is not based on reality but fantasy. It has 10 to 20 years at the outside and then the whole gamut of spiritual memes will inevitably find themselves decommissioned!

By the way, Brainache, this what alchemy is all about: harmonizing polarities. Alchemists wrapped their work in multiple mysteries to protect themselves from persecution and protect their 'sacred knowledge' from the 'profane'. There's really nothing mysterious about it, at least not in the sense that it can't be grasped by the alchemical process itself. Plus, if you understand alchemy you understand the basic principles evolution, both natural and cultural. It's happening as we speak!

Well, in mystical terms, alchemy is about effecting transformations in the pineal gland to access altered states. You have to **** a lot as well! But, philosophically alchemy is still bogged down in dualism. If you read Sendivogius and Tom Vaughan and all those old guys you will see layers upon layers of it in there. The whole principle is flawed. It also will not survive brain science's further development. One the self is comprehended for what it truly is so the notion that there exists some spiritual self will disappear with it.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Like Bubblefish stated earlier...

Yeah, but BF spins out at the slightest whiff of negative feedback. The guy can't allow himself to feel stuff basically. You give him 1 iota of criticism and he's straight away accusing you of projecting whatever. I mean, would you regard anything he says as having weight? I wouldn't. He's nice but just a lightweight.

Nick said:
Would you be OK with dying if a perfect replica of you took your place?

............

Great question! I'm OK with dying as it is.

You're ok with dying as it is? Really? Prove it to me!

If a perfect replica happens to take my place, I reckon nothing would change, assuming the replica is truly perfect. Like I said, self is a matter of perspective. Same lens, same perspective, right?

What would your answer be? Thanks for the welcome!

I would say some days yes some days no. I enjoy being alive and sure if I really sit and go inside there's no one really there but I still find it a nice illusion, this idea of there being a persisting self. Humans, huh?

Nick

 

[WWHP]

UPDATE: still in the spirit world talking with the spirits of the tobacco, ayahuasca, and chacruna - with some additions thrown in, an actual manifestation of the Taoist Goddess Quan Yin. I'm having just as much fun sharing that with you as you are reading it

The spirits assisted me in realizing I missed a point made by Nick when he wrote

If you're going to discuss computational theory you need to appreciate that there are 2 (in reality more) acutely distinct levels - phenomenal reality and sub-brain reality.

ANOTHER DUALITY IN THE COMPUTATIONAL MODEL! Love it. Haven't read so much of Pinker, other than a few articles and interviews. He doesn't bother me as much as Dennet does, I look forward to revisiting his model sometime in the future.

So - to wit; I am a bit behind in this discussion, still on page 14, and will address each and every single post that has been posted. And I can assure you I will. After this weekend.

The spirits of the plants are very eager to see me return to this discussion

 

[Nick227]

The spirits assisted me in realizing I missed a point made by Nick when he wrote

Well, you need to check in with some better spirits! the ones you're hanging out with now are clearly pretty lame. Tell the shaman you want better. Really, I'd ask for my money back if some spirit came out with something so obviously deluded.

Do you actually believe any piece of nonsense the plant spirit tells you? They're probably sitting around somewhere laughing their nuts off at this idiotic human who believes anything he's told.

ANOTHER DUALITY IN THE COMPUTATIONAL MODEL! Love it.

So, actually you're reinforcing the point I made when I said you were incapable of understanding that emergence doesn't mean duality. That phenomenal reality emerges from brain activity does not demonstrate dualism.

Nick

 

[Brainache]

Oof... !

I think I'll just bow out now and leave you to your self imposed befuddlement.
Cheers.

 

[Paul2]

BubbleF, did you miss my question in post #554?

 

[TempleJohn]

Curiosity killed the cat. Or did it?

I don't really see what any of this has to do with it.

My barebones mythology at present, presented in arbitrary metaphors:

Things be processes are things. As things we perceive two kinds of process. One process takes things apart, the other puts things together. Whenever we look at a thing, it turns out to be part of another thing in process. We find that each thing is a repetition and variation on other things, and things can also be put together to make new things. However, all variations reflect the one thing, simultaneously, endlessly, and uniquely in the process of being taken apart and put together again. It is this cyclical process that gives rise to phenomena.

So reality is infinite reflections. Who's looking through the mirrors if not Self? We want to see. To that end, science takes things apart in order to represent reality to Self. Art puts things together to represent Self in reality. Both are processes towards self-realization. Mysticism is the reconciliation of the perception of finite reality with the conception of infinite Self through creative processes.

Materialism can show you a reality that exists prior to self, prior to polarity.

In light of the above, such statements are meaningless. Science mirrors to us the relationship between finite parts and relative wholes. Art mirrors to us the relationship of relative wholes to the absolute. Science interpolates, art extrapolates. Science is finite mythology, art is infinite mythology.

Spirituality will not survive the further development of brain science because it is not based on reality but fantasy.

LOL, reality is fantasy. Even if science explains more and more of our relative reality, we've only created more cracks in the mirror of Self. We still need art, the other side of the process, to put Humpty Dumpty together again. Mysticism is the artistic side of self-realization, the creative process of re-integration. Mystics seek out and find the experience of a self beyond our regular awareness. As I keep saying, relative self is all a matter of perspective. Enlarge your perspective, enlarge your identity.

Once the self is comprehended for what it truly is the notion that there exists some spiritual self [separate from a material self, ed.] will disappear with it.

Agreed. We must own the paradox of infinity so we can transcend such dualities. Until then we are schizophrenic, Self dueling Self. Philosophy takes this duel to the extremes until there is only one possible thing, one available process remaining: surrender to paradox. If my words come across as gibberish or just more dualism, you have not yet surrendered to the paradox. It's everything you wished for.

I enjoy being alive and sure if I really sit and go inside there's no one really there

See, after all these years you're still calling it "there". Projecting a reflection of Self. Stuck on one side of the process, denying the other. Where is your home? Get creative! We're all one big family, waiting for you to come join us once more by the campfire, where we tell stories, sing songs, play games, and make love

but I still find it a nice illusion, this idea of there being a persisting self.

To sum it all up: finite self is illusion, infinite Self is reality. How else could it be?

Brainache said:

I think I'll just bow out now and leave you to your self imposed befuddlement.

Stop asking questions and stop learning. But thanks for the duel, I hope your brain feels better soon

 

[TempleJohn]

There is a great new article on Reality Sandwich, extremely relevant as chance should have it, entitled "Is Ayahuasca Healing a Self-Delusion?".

 

[Nick227]

My barebones mythology at present, presented in arbitrary metaphors:

Things be processes are things. As things we perceive two kinds of process. One process takes things apart, the other puts things together. Whenever we look at a thing, it turns out to be part of another thing in process. We find that each thing is a repetition and variation on other things, and things can also be put together to make new things. However, all variations reflect the one thing, simultaneously, endlessly, and uniquely in the process of being taken apart and put together again. It is this cyclical process that gives rise to phenomena.

It's one way of looking at things, sure. However, it is now realised through science that consciousness is a brain phenomenom. This is pretty much confirmed. Thus, the level of mysticism that was formerly present is now reduced. We don't know what substance ultimately is, but we do know that consciousness arises from the substance of the brain. Thus the degree of mystery is down.

So reality is infinite reflections. Who's looking through the mirrors if not Self?

No one is observing.

It's precisely this kind of idea that mysticism perpetuates and materialism eliminates. There is no observer. There is no experiencer. If you don't want to hear it from the materialists then check out enlightened people like Ramana Maharshi, Dolano, Gangaji, Tony Parsons, whoever. They are all saying the same thing.

We want to see. To that end, science takes things apart in order to represent reality to Self. Art puts things together to represent Self in reality. Both are processes towards self-realization.

There are no processes towards self-realisation.

Believing mental selfhood to be real, this "self" attempts to "self-realise" by putting "itself" through processes, whether therapy, creative expression, meditation, whatever. Can you see the craziness? There is no self, so how is it going to realise itself?! It's just mad and these kinds of delusions are again precisely the kind of thing that mysticism perpetuates.

Agreed. We must own the paradox of infinity so we can transcend such dualities.

Who is there to transcend anything? Again the whole notion is just a misunderstanding created by believing mental selfhood to be something it is not. Self is just a social construct that emerges from brain activity. It's for you to be social, that's all.

See, after all these years you're still calling it "there". Projecting a reflection of Self.

Nature of the paradox, man. You have to use the terminology and open yourself to people saying...well if there's no self, who's writing? Just how it is.

To sum it all up: finite self is illusion, infinite Self is reality. How else could it be?

Finite self is a reality that emerges from brain activity, created by natural selection, for social purposes. Infinite self is what happens when mental selfhood drops away and you have to later make a story about what happened. Having believed self to exist and be finite, when it drops away it seems at first to be infinite. Infinite self = no self.

Natural selection has caused the mind to believe that there is an observer, an experiencer, an owner. Living in this delusion it sometimes tries to undertake all sorts of mystical, therapeutic or meditative endeavours in the belief that it needs to "transcend itself." Believing self to be real it believes this "self" needs to "do something" to somehow overcome or transcend "itself." But there is no self in the first place! The whole thing is just a misunderstanding.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Where is your home? Get creative! We're all one big family, waiting for you to come join us once more by the campfire, where we tell stories, sing songs, play games, and make love

Well the creativity and story telling + games I think I'll pass on. Quite like a bit of singing, as long as it's not hideous new age songs about the earth or something, and sex is usually good. Are there some fit looking women around this camp-fire then?

Nick

 

[WWHP]

Is Ayahuasca healing a self delusion?

http://www.realitysandwich.com/ayahuasca_healing_selfdelusion

 

[TempleJohn]

Thanks for your reply ole Nick. This is fun.

Thus the degree of mystery is down.

Ha ha! Where is down in an infinite reality?

Self is just a social construct that emerges from brain activity.

Continued: brain is just a social construct that emerges from nature. Nature is just a social construct that arises from substance. Substance is just a social construct that arises from existence. Existence is an infinite social construction and deconstruction of itself.

The fact of existence implies identity. Yet infinity can't be measured or described as a whole. Let's measure what we need with science, and describe the rest as art. Infinity leaves so much to the imagination!

I like your reliance upon the concept of being 'social', the connotations are poetic!

Infinite self is what happens when mental selfhood drops away

Right. Mental selfhood is a finite perspective of reality to the infinite Self. If Jimmy is dead then Jimmy's selfhood i.e. his perspective of reality ceases to exist. But reality goes on existing - infinitely so - and the Self does "too".

Infinite self = no self.

Infinite self = infinite reality.
No self = No reality.

Oh no! Nick! I just found out we don't exist! Come quick, we're late for non-existence!

The whole thing is just a misunderstanding.

I love these little nuggets!

There are no processes towards self-realization.

Everything in reality is in a process, including ourselves. We appear to have some degree control over ours. We navigate the present by a map of the future drawn from past experience. It's one of the ways we go between states. The other is by finding trails left behind by those who came before. We do them both, consciously and unconsciously. Either way it's Self-realization.

No one is observing.

This is the same as saying everyone is observing. Hi folks at home!

Are there some fit looking women around this camp-fire then?

Materialists...

 

[reeceh7]

lol at materialists

i'd like to welcome myself to this thread with a statement:

if our "consciousness"(whatever that is) is simply our brain function, then who's brain function is that?

you say there's no "self" with materialism, so who's brain function are you talking about?

Its like sound coming through two speakers, they give the illusion of a third "objective" speaker, but is that speaker there? Do two relative perspectives equal a third "objective" one?

as soon as you materialists find the "god particle", you wanna know what i'm gonna ask you? what it's made of and what caused it and then we can all go back to square one like we do every single time. right back to the here and now.

Its like this: thought describes reality, but what does reality describe?
if we knew everything, there would be nothing to know, think about it!
everything is nothing you fools!

 

[Nick227]

Thanks for your reply ole Nick. This is fun.

thank you. i am also enjoying myself!

Ha ha! Where is down in an infinite reality?

Well, down as in "less." You see, infinity is another self-created fantasy. Whilst the mind is trapped in a wrong vision of self, and operating from this wrong vision, it seems as though "infinity" is a necessary concept. When the correct understanding of self develops there is simply what is.

This aside, the rise of science has enabled us to reduce the level of mystery inherent in existence, though some might argue that it's simply been shuffled around a bit.
When Buddha was about no one knew that consciousness was simply a brain phenomenon, it could have been anything. Maybe we were the ground of existence experiencing limited form through a mental filter, as in Eastern notions like Brahman and Shunyata. But now, thanks to science and materialism, we know this is not true. Consciousness is just a brain phenomenon. Of course, finally what substance is and why it seems to be so "not the same" is still mysterious, but nevertheless the overall level of mystery is down.

Continued: brain is just a social construct that emerges from nature.

Is it bollocks!

Nature is just a social construct that arises from substance.

Twaddle

Substance is just a social construct that arises from existence.

Nonsense.

Existence is an infinite social construction and deconstruction of itself.

Highly questionable!

The fact of existence implies identity.

You see, this is precisely what happens when you feed a simple computer with wrong information and ask it to make statements about the nature of reality. Trapped in a wrong vision as to what self is it just flaps round and round on itself.

I like your reliance upon the concept of being 'social', the connotations are poetic!

thank you.

Right. Mental selfhood is a finite perspective of reality to the infinite Self. If Jimmy is dead then Jimmy's selfhood i.e. his perspective of reality ceases to exist. But reality goes on existing - infinitely so - and the Self does "too".

when you're dead you're dead. It is often in fact a simple fear of death which sustains the wrong vision of self. The mind starts to get it, oh of course there isn't really an experiencer, then suddenly it's like, oh but that means i'm just going to die, and it jumps back into its fantasy world. In reality the self is actually constantly living and dying with each identified thought that sustains it.

Nick

 

[TempleJohn]

Choose your illusion

You see, infinity is another self-created fantasy.

Number is both real and imaginary, finite and infinite. Denial of infinity is simply a rejection of the imaginary. The real and the imaginary are part and parcel of existence, like it or not, because existence is number, whether you choose to see it as 0, 1, neither, both, or the infinite all of the above.

Whilst the mind is trapped in a wrong vision of self

There is no wrong or right vision, there is only choice and consequence. Do you choose responsibility for self-conception, or do you choose the victim role arbitrarily interpretable from Western materialism and Eastern solipsism?

In reality the self is actually constantly living and dying with each identified thought that sustains it.

Yes, and the fractal holographic nature of existence implies this to be so for everything. It's turtles all the way down.

 

[Nick227]

Number is both real and imaginary, finite and infinite.

Number has nothing to do with it. Mental selfhood is constructed only by thought. It is an utterly transient emergent phenomenon.

All of this construction that your mind is getting busy with is based around the premise of persisting selfhood. But there is no self which persists. It's here...and it's gone. There is no need for all this extra stuff you're doing, trying to bolster up a wrong perspective. All the good mystics will tell you "turn the light around" or "shine a light upon yourSelf." They are saying, put the focus inside. You look....and it's no longer there!

You don't need all this stuff, TJ. Start from materialism and it becomes clear.

Nick

 

[WWHP]

Bubblefish,

Do plant spirits objectively exist, or do they exist such that they can communicate knowledge to humans?

Yes?
No?
Maybe?
I don't know?

Finally an interesting question! I don't know either! but they do exist in some sense that they can communicate knowledge, YES! And they can be experienced, inside of us, and outside of us, although privately.

It gets really strange when you see a spirit, and then others can report the same experience. Some spirits have a really unique visual quality, once it intrigued me to find out that a set of spirits I was looking at, that held a certain position with their faces, were mutually experienced by another sitter, after I told him what I saw, he said "Oh yes, I know those!" and then began to make the same faces to me that the spirits did. Still very perplexed by that one.

When the ayahausca comes on, the first visitation comes as visits from 'the doctors' who arrive to heal you. These take on very common themes.

The Shipibo are called 'the masters of ayahuasca' and have been drinking it for millenia, thousands of years. Their language itself was actually taught to them by the spirits of the plants. They also have no word for 'time'. The language of the shipibo is the language of the plants. Children start drinking it at age 6, and by the age of 12, I imagine they know more about biology and consciousness than Dennet and Dawkins combined.

Steve Beyer does a better job than I communicating what spirits 'are'.

http://www.singingtotheplants.com/2008/02/what-are-spirits/

More later everyone, trying to catch up with work, life, love, and this thread.

 

[WWHP]

The self may not lay in the brain, but it DOES lay in the DNA.

I AM my DNA, right? and my brain is nothing more than a biological computer DNA has evolved to become aware of itself. At higher levels of development, one can become conscious of the exchange between our individual DNA and the brain. Once this happens, one can unlock the 'knowledge' in our DNA structure.