Chaos Magic

[PixyMisa]

Feindbild.

It would appear so.

 

[Nonpareil]

<snip straw men, insults, and irrelevance>

Argent…just read what follows if you actually want to understand where things stand re: consciousness. As for the rest of your garbage, you’re not even irrelevant.

<snip quote>

Once again, you prove quite handily that you don't understand a single thing that is being said - and that you ignore everything which contradicts what you want to believe.

Posts such as this one by Guybrush Threepwood explain the issues in Piggy's thoughts on consciousness. Ones like this one by laca present an argument for the computational model which Piggy has yet to answer. And so on.

Try reading the entire thread rather than the posts which you think support your position. You might learn something.

 

[annnnoid]

That sounds a little confused, or wrong. Pace Rumsfeld, the known and the unknown are subsets of everything (life, the universe, and). The unknown is those things we don't know, so the known (those things we do know) cannot be a subset of the unknown, or vice-versa. They are mutually exclusive. Within everything, each is bounded by the other - they share a limiting boundary. The less is known, the more is unknown. The more is known the less is unknown, and contrariwise.

'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
Tweedledee

You are, of course, being excessively literal. The point was to describe the situation as it currently exists. Necessarily metaphorical…for what is the situation as it currently exists? How would it be possible to survey every specialized field of knowledge and come to some kind of conclusion on the sum total? All we can do is speak generally. Generally speaking, we do not know who we are personally, and no one can answer the question what we are scientifically. Also it is an indisputable fact that there does not as yet exist an understanding of the fundamental reality of the universe… what reality is and how it occurs. So we don’t know who we are (or what variety of question that even is…though it is most certainly a relevant one since we know we cannot answer it), we don’t know what we are, we don’t know where reality comes from and we don’t know what reality is. Nor do we know what knowing is or how it comes to know whether or not it knows anything. For every ‘Science of Logic’ there is a Schopenhauer to tear it down. Lots of very substantial things that we simply do not have answers to.

What is, though, quite indisputable is that we and this entire universe exist and everything seems to function within some degree of unity, coherence, and purpose. In fact, the only dissonant element in the whole colossal thing is us. Probably something to do with free will (which is….what?...and occurs…how?...and…why?)….one of those irrelevant elements of that insignificant thing that Pixy refers to as consciousness. Thus it can be said that though we quite obviously do not understand the superset that would describe an understanding of everything (because everything must have some variety of understanding since it has a functional existence) we just as obviously have some variety of an understanding of a portion of this everything (demonstrated by our ability to manipulate matter and meaning to a relatively sophisticated degree). Considering that the issues of which we are ignorant pertain to and implicate the biggest questions that occur (our identity and the identity of that place which we inhabit), it is quite reasonable…if only metaphorically…to conclude that our ignorance must somehow be a subset of a greater knowledge. The fact that it can be argued that the situation is more than just metaphor makes the argument that much more compelling.

As for you Argent…if you’re so convinced Piggy is mistaken go and take it up with him. Let’s see if you actually have the b......s to stand up for yourself for once instead of just grasping random quotes and throwing mud from the sidelines. I read all the posts long before I included those exerts so I already know exactly what Piggy’s positions are. You, on the other hand, quite obviously do not.

Here’s the link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187181&page=124

…go and find out. Or maybe I’ll just take your dumb little critique over there myself and see what Piggy has to say about it since spine is not something you’ve ever demonstrated any ownership of.

 

[Robin]

So why the reference to ‘idiots’…? Because that’s exactly how anyone who even acknowledges these issues (let alone believes in them) is typically regarded by skeptics.

Oh, I see. You mean you didn't think they were idiots.

We are talking about people who wrote, or who took seriously a book about some old turkeys like how drug induced 'mystical' states could not be explained by physicalism, or positing that Transmission Theory makes sense. I mean Transmission Theory? You have got to be kidding me. I didn't think anybody was pushing that barrow since Interesting Ian left.

I am happy to be counted among those who regard the people you mentioned as idiots.

 

[annnnoid]

Oh, I see. You mean you didn't think they were idiots.

We are talking about people who wrote, or who took seriously a book about some old turkeys like how drug induced 'mystical' states could not be explained by physicalism, or positing that Transmission Theory makes sense. I mean Transmission Theory? You have got to be kidding me. I didn't think anybody was pushing that barrow since Interesting Ian left.

I am happy to be counted among those who regard the people you mentioned as idiots.

So I’ll just conclude you didn’t actually read the book then. One way or another, we’ll all eventually see where these ‘old turkeys’ end up. I guess I can confidently say that it will be somewhere very unexpected. You seem to be drifting towards an overtly rational interpretation of being. As you once quite clearly pointed out, science is the worst epistemic system. The only question is why? Perhaps you would conclude that it simply doesn’t matter. I would conclude otherwise.

 

[Robin]

So I’ll just conclude you didn’t actually read the book then.

I have read enough books about transmission theory thank you.

As you once quite clearly pointed out, science is the worst epistemic system.

No, I said the worst epistemic system apart from all the others.

An important difference and quite interesting that you chose to leave the last part out.

 

[PixyMisa]

We all know what kind of history the study of these phenomenon has had. It’s obvious all over these boards. It’s called bias.

Yes, we admit it. We're biased. We're biased towards evidence and logic, and if you can't present either one, we will reject your claims as nonsense.

IOW…the areas of spirituality, religion, and what is referred to as psi research are no longer populated by crackpots and charlatans.

Sadly, these areas are populated more exclusively by crackpots and charlatans than ever before, because everyone else has seen the light - or lack thereof - and gone off to do something useful.

What this means is that the subjects can finally receive the attention they actually deserve, rather than being the haunt of angel-chasers or pseudo-skeptics.

Where is the evidence?

From everything that I understand so far, Irreducible Mind actually succeeds in accomplishing exactly what the summary described. The issue, though, cannot be reduced to this absurd parody that is so often displayed at JREF… ”well we haven’t yet seen replicable tests done.” The subject requires a treatment quite explicitly on the scale of this book…because it is that substantial, and the issues are that complex.

Book shmook. Show us the evidence.

As for the quote from Piggy - on this topic he's wrong and has always been wrong, this has all been covered in epic detail dozens of times with never a single cogent objection from him, and he has nothing to present at his point but cherry-picked sound bites.

 

[PixyMisa]

I have read enough books about transmission theory thank you.

I could see the point in reading a book called "Transmission Theory and Why it is Wrong", which has half a page on transmission theory and eight hundred and a half pages on neurobiology with each chapter summing up with yet another refutation of transmission theory. Mind you, such a book would be even better if you cut out the transmission theory stuff entirely.

On the other hand, it could just say "Split brain patients." and that would be the end of it. Split brain patients are impossible to explain under transmission theory, but make perfect sense under a computational approach.

 

[dafydd]

We all know what kind of history the study of these phenomenon has had. It’s obvious all over these boards. It’s called bias. A lot of it is quite understandable, given all that is involved. The fact is though, all-that-actually-is-involved crosses a huge swath of human activity (history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, religion, theology…not to mention the entire range of hard sciences), which is exactly why the issue is so frequently misrepresented …because those who attempt to understand it, on either side of the issue, frequently resort to simplistic explanations. Even the subject of this thread…sigils etc., can be explored to quite some degree of complexity from a range of different perspectives, and yet all that typically occurs are dumb single sentence comments that superficially dismiss the entire issue (obvious example: Sledge…” Show us your chaos magic, Aku. Or do you agree it doesn't exist?”). Dumb comments are fine, it’s an open forum after all….but don’t pretend to have an understanding of an issue this big if that’s all you’re capable of.

Big changes have occurred, especially over the past few decades. Consciousness and the complete range of human reality have become legitimate areas of study at virtually every university around the world….and as these studies have become more comprehensive those who pursue them have ventured ever further into what was previously regarded as no-mans land. IOW…the areas of spirituality, religion, and what is referred to as psi research are no longer populated by crackpots and charlatans. These areas of study are populated by individuals with a great deal of credibility, education, and insight. Thus it is no longer possible for critics/skeptics to dismiss the issues by association. IOW…those who explore these things don’t hang out in dungeons, deserts, caves, or mountain tops…they now have doctorates and tenure and they understand and explore the subjects in ways that have previously never occurred.

What this means is that the subjects can finally receive the attention they actually deserve, rather than being the haunt of angel-chasers or pseudo-skeptics. There will continue to be opposition and blatant bias. It’s documented and it’s pervasive but as more and more credible studies are published perspectives will change.

From everything that I understand so far, Irreducible Mind actually succeeds in accomplishing exactly what the summary described. The issue, though, cannot be reduced to this absurd parody that is so often displayed at JREF… ”well we haven’t yet seen replicable tests done.” The subject requires a treatment quite explicitly on the scale of this book…because it is that substantial, and the issues are that complex.

So why the reference to ‘idiots’…? Because that’s exactly how anyone who even acknowledges these issues (let alone believes in them) is typically regarded by skeptics. You don’t have to go more than a few steps anywhere at JREF for quite explicit proof of that. It was merely a not-too-subtle attempt at irony….because, quite obviously, individuals with that degree of cog-sci credentials cannot be simply brushed under the rug with all the other charlatans and crackpots.


Argent…just read what follows if you actually want to understand where things stand re: consciousness. As for the rest of your garbage, you’re not even irrelevant.

Drop the derailing and sophistry and tell us if you think that doodling on a bit of paper can have an effect on the physical world,in other words,do you give chaos magic any credence?

 

[Robin]

I could see the point in reading a book called "Transmission Theory and Why it is Wrong", which has half a page on transmission theory and eight hundred and a half pages on neurobiology with each chapter summing up with yet another refutation of transmission theory. Mind you, such a book would be even better if you cut out the transmission theory stuff entirely.

On the other hand, it could just say "Split brain patients." and that would be the end of it. Split brain patients are impossible to explain under transmission theory, but make perfect sense under a computational approach.

And transmission theory does not explain what the authors of this book claim it explains.

For example even if we were to believe that there was such a thing as an out of body experience the authors do not demonstrate how transmission/filter theory is supposed to explain this.

I suppose that the unfiltered consciousness is supposed to possess a pair of eyes.

 

[Robin]

And I am not completely convinced that annnoid has read more than the Amazon page for "Irreducible Minds" which is where all his information seems to come from.

 

[Nonpareil]

<snip nonsense>

Generally speaking, we do not know who we are personally, and no one can answer the question what we are scientifically.

Wrong. Maybe you are incapable of saying who you are, but the rest of us do not suffer from your willful ignorance.

Also it is an indisputable fact that there does not as yet exist an understanding of the fundamental reality of the universe… what reality is and how it occurs.

True. But this is because "What is fundamental reality?" is nothing but word salad. It has no meaning.

<snip nonsense>

What is, though, quite indisputable is that we and this entire universe exist and everything seems to function within some degree of unity, coherence, and purpose. In fact, the only dissonant element in the whole colossal thing is us.

And we are "dissonant"... how, exactly?

Probably something to do with free will (which is….what?...and occurs…how?...and…why?)…

It doesn't occur.

As for you Argent…if you’re so convinced Piggy is mistaken go and take it up with him. Let’s see if you actually have the b......s to stand up for yourself for once instead of just grasping random quotes and throwing mud from the sidelines.

"Grasping random quotes and throwing mud from the sidelines"? Looks like someone is projecting rather heavily.

As for taking it up with him, I really see no point. He hasn't begun to establish a case. Neither have you.

I read all the posts long before I included those exerts so I already know exactly what Piggy’s positions are. You, on the other hand, quite obviously do not.

Funny that you say this, then fail to explain what, exactly, I misinterpreted.

Or maybe I’ll just take your dumb little critique over there myself and see what Piggy has to say about it

Oh, no. I'm so scared. Someone is going to quote me to Piggy!

Seriously, though, go ahead. If I didn't want anyone knowing what I thought, I wouldn't have posted it. If Piggy thinks that it deserves a response, fine with me. I do, however, find it rather telling that you aren't even trying to formulate a response, but rather "threatening" me with bringing the post to the attention of another, more respected poster.

since spine is not something you’ve ever demonstrated any ownership of.

OH DEAR GOD

THE IRONY

IT BURNS

 

[tsig]

Originally Posted by annnnoid
<snip nonsense>

Generally speaking, we do not know who we are personally, and no one can answer the question what we are scientifically.

Wrong. Maybe you are incapable of saying who you are, but the rest of us do not suffer from your willful ignorance.



True. But this is because "What is fundamental reality?" is nothing but word salad. It has no meaning.

He starts out denying the brain is material and winds up denying himself.

Then we have "argument by adjective". Is a "fundamental reality" anything like 'real reality' or 'other reality'?

 

[kmortis]

Drop the derailing and sophistry and tell us if you think that doodling on a bit of paper can have an effect on the physical world,in other words,do you give chaos magic any credence?

I practiced Chaos Magick for about 5 years back in the 90's. I finally stopped when I realized that the only effect that it, or any other magickal ritual, had was to put me in the midset to either effect change or accept change in my life. I decided that I'd skip the middle man (doodling on a page) and just start effecting change in my life on my own.

I'm much happier now.

 

[annnnoid]

I have read enough books about transmission theory thank you.

No, I said the worst epistemic system apart from all the others.

An important difference and quite interesting that you chose to leave the last part out.

It would, of course, be interesting if in fact I did choose as you described. As it is, I simply neglected to include it. I suppose I simply assumed the rest is obvious. I have no real argument with the position. The point, though, is not whether it is the worst except for all the others, or the worst period, or whatever…the point is simply why? What is the situation, and why does it exist as it does? Given the stature that ‘science’ has achieved…it is certainly damning with faint praise to describe it in such a way. You seem satisfied in accepting the status quo. I simply am not.

As for having read more than Amazon…I actually have, but that is really not relevant to the point. Whether you have may be more so as you seem to be the one who so vehemently dismisses the books conclusions. I could point you towards other credible sources who explore these issues (have a look at that list of links for example)…people with backgrounds which would seem similar to your own, but you don’t seem too interested, which is fine. No doubt you’ve explored….something…. that would account for your intransigent POV. The area of study is progressing rapidly though and the only reason it has not overtaken skeptics like you and the insect is simply because of the sheer dimensions of what is involved….and, to some degree…latent bias. The bias is understandable given the history and nature of the subject and the history and nature of collective and individual human psychology. The point is, the approach you and other skeptics seem to take is simply to smother the endless fires of every size that are constantly burning and starting all over the place…. when what you don’t seem to recognize is that the whole world is an inferno.

Thus my question re: the deficiencies of science (doubtless Pixy will insist that science has no deficiencies but I’ll let you haggle over that with him)….why (and, I suppose, what?)?

As for Piggy (and quite a number of others) being wrong Pixy, I’ll let you take that up with him. The point of that whole pointless exercise is precisely what Dennet alluded to. That consciousness is the last remaining mystery (and why). The fact that you’re so stubbornly convinced of the exact opposite (contrary to just about every credible published position) says all I need to know about your level of insight into the matter. It’s quite obvious that, short of an apocalypse, you’re never going to change your mind about anything….and one word responses and ‘google it’ evidentiary positions do not an argument make.

And the battle hymn of the skeptic is trumpeted once again....evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence! The book is the evidence Pixy, but you actually have to read the whole thing (you won't, but that's a given). Perhaps this insight will advance your understanding:
“The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.”


Argent…your tantrums are amusing but tedious and I’ve simply become bored with you. I suppose we’ll see if you ever actually have the courage to take up the issue with Piggy. Personally I doubt it. As Piggy quite clearly pointed out (apparently you missed it) computationlism is pretty much dead in the water (from what I can see...the computationlist position amounts to nothing more than bare assertion and hand-waving...unless you have some vital new insight to contribute of course...shall we hold our breath?...no...didn't think so). If you want a particularly effective summary of the whole argument go and read Aku’s annihilation of Nescafe on the same thread a while back…..if you’re interested in anything more than slinging mud from the sidelines and sticking your head in the sand.

As for free will….entire libraries have been written on the subject. It has been a fundamental component of every philosophical, psychological, sociological, and religious understanding since human beings have existed…… and you summarily dismiss it with an arrogant “it doesn’t occur”. And to support this absolutely astounding conclusion we have….nothing (what was that thing about extraordinary claims….?????). Not even ‘google it’ this time. How about I give you a hand with this one.

Here’s a link: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&c...l&channel=s&q=free+will&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

I ‘googled it’ for you. Funny…over 400,000,000 hits for something that doesn’t exist (that’s even more than Justin Bieber…and it’s generally accepted that he exists)…I’d say someone has got their facts mixed up.

I wish I cared enough to find this funny, because otherwise it would be hilarious…but I don’t. That says just about all anyone needs to know about your insight into the world. I think the appropriate adjective in this situation is ‘ignorant’.

Continue on the sidelines if you want. As I said, you’re not even irrelevant.

 

[Mirrorglass]

It is fascinating how many people seem to think writing more hides the weakness of their grasp on the English language.

 

[The Norseman]

IAs for free will….entire libraries have been written on the subject. It has been a fundamental component of every philosophical, psychological, sociological, and religious understanding since human beings have existed…… and you summarily dismiss it with an arrogant “it doesn’t occur”. And to support this absolutely astounding conclusion we have….nothing (what was that thing about extraordinary claims….?????). Not even ‘google it’ this time. How about I give you a hand with this one.

Here’s a link: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&c...l&channel=s&q=free+will&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

I ‘googled it’ for you. Funny…over 400,000,000 hits for something that doesn’t exist

LOL

You Googled for 'free' and 'will' which returned over 400 million hits, unsurprisingly.

When 'free will' is searched for, the results are 8.44 million.

There are 8.97 million hits when 'bigfoot' is searched for.

According to your logic, bigfoot has a higher likelihood of existing than free will.

 

[dafydd]

It is fascinating how many people seem to think writing more hides the weakness of their grasp on the English language.

I noticed that.

 

[Nonpareil]

<snip repetitious nonsense>

Argent…your tantrums are amusing but tedious and I’ve simply become bored with you. I suppose we’ll see if you ever actually have the courage to take up the issue with Piggy. Personally I doubt it.

"Tantrums"? Don't flatter yourself. On your best day, you might get me up to "mildly annoyed" (punnnnn).

As for taking it up with Piggy, again, it's not a matter of courage - or lack thereof. And even if it were, it's irrelevant, and it's rather pathetic to see you trying to base your entire defense of your position on the fact that I haven't posted in another thread.

<snip insults, irrelevancy and repetition>

As for free will….entire libraries have been written on the subject. It has been a fundamental component of every philosophical, psychological, sociological, and religious understanding since human beings have existed…… and you summarily dismiss it with an arrogant “it doesn’t occur”.

Yep. Because it doesn't. There is no such thing as free will. That it forms the basis of many religions is irrelevant. That philosophers think it exists is irrelevant. Even if sociologists think it exists, it is irrelevant. They have no more evidence to support that claim than you do.

Free will does not exist.

And to support this absolutely astounding conclusion we have….nothing (what was that thing about extraordinary claims….?????). Not even ‘google it’ this time. How about I give you a hand with this one.

Or how about I give you one?

Here’s a link: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&c...l&channel=s&q=free+will&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

I ‘googled it’ for you. Funny…over 400,000,000 hits for something that doesn’t exist (that’s even more than Justin Bieber…and it’s generally accepted that he exists)…I’d say someone has got their facts mixed up.

No.

See, annnnoid, the difference between my Google link and yours is that mine actually led to the evidence. Yours doesn't.

<snip insults>

Are you done?

 

[dlorde]

You are, of course, being excessively literal.

Yes, it was obviously my mistake for applying the logic you appealed to when you said:

.. the unknown within which the known must…by every function of logic and sanity [...]…exist.

.
Next time you appeal to logic and sanity, I must remember not to take you so literally