Chaos Magic

[Sledge]

Show us your chaos magic, Aku. Or do you agree it doesn't exist?

 

[AkuManiMani]

</yawn>

Yet another exercise in pedantic tedium from none other than the PixyMisa. Lets see if I can do it nearly as well...

You're not actually reading anything anyone writes, are you?

I take this to mean that you don't consider yourself pedantic and tedious?

You're a baldfaced liar.

No, but I'm mistaken.

After so many pages of your insistence to the contrary I find it hard to believe that this was an honest mistake on your part.

That said, you are still and always have been wrong in your interpretation of what Argent said.

So you're making a red-herring of a moot point.

No; you've spent considerable time attacking Pure Argent based on your misinterpretation of what he said. Did he ask you for details? No. Therefore your statement was false.

I said that there were repeated calls for me to recall more details despite the fact that my recollections were deemed unreliable. If he meant to deny that he personally didn't demand more details from me he should have specified such.

Equivocation and more strawmanning.

What is the difference between non-existent impossible magic elves and non-existent impossible non-corporeal minds, exactly? And how do you know this?

Because I'm not referring to "magic elves". I'm suggesting that the auditory "voices" in people's minds are autonomous conscious entities and are possibly not confined to individual brains.

[If you want to claim that my reference to "magic elves" is a strawman of your claim to "non-corporeal minds", then you have to have both a coherent definition of your "non-corporeal minds" and a better supported mechanism than your usual argument from asserted ignorance.

This coming from a person who's argued that consciousness is not medium dependent...?

Information is medium-independent. That's simply a fact.

That means that it doesn't matter what the medium is. It does not mean that it doesn't matter whether there's a medium.

This has, of course, been explained to you dozens of times.

I'm saying consciousness is a physical medium IAOI.

By "we" I assume you're referring to yourself and the voices in your head.

Try reading the thread for once, rather than devoting all your efforts to inane ad hominems.

Still confusing direct insults with ad hominem arguments, I see...

Funny how anything that directly contradicts your tripe is "irrelevant".

It doesn't contradict anything I said.

You asserted that the superset is bounded by the subset. That was a blatantly false statement.

No.

You try to lecture us on set theory, and then claim that one of a pair of by defintion disjoint sets can be a subset of the other?

No. No, I don't think so.

No

Wrong.

You are a very, very confused man.

Wrong </snicker>

I've just argued it and it's what I've been arguing. Ergo, contrary to your boneheaded counter-assertions, its what I'm arguing.

No, in fact. I mean, if it were you'd still be wrong, because your premises are false, but at least you'd be logically consistent.

But no; your usual arguments (as opposed to this meta-argument) are just collections of logical fallacies.

You baldly declare every statement that disagrees with you as a "logical fallacy" of some kind, regardless of whether it is or not; hence, your accusations of "logical fallacy" tend to not hold much weight. I suspect this is a product of your megalomania.

Also wrong.

Nope. We've already established this; your assertions of universal ignorance on whatever subject may be convenient are simply baseless - and in many cases, actually impossible.

Wrong.

I see you're even more confused that I thought.

I really don't think you do.

Irrelevant.

More baldfaced lies on your part. I suppose if you make a concentrated effort to disregard your blatant disconnect with reality it really isn't there, huh?

You're actually denying that those questions have been answered, rather than asserting you reject the answers?

Since you have, in the past, responded to and rejected those same answers, there's a serious disconnect there.

An irrelevant and incorrect utterance does not constitute a suitable answer.

Define.

Reference to self.

Define "reference". Define "self". Explain how conjunction of the two produces consciousness or how they produce variations thereof.

Of what?

Of the system.

Any system?

I'm looking for something better than your regurgitated brain-farts.

You're looking for magic. That's your problem; it's always your problem.

I suppose since you apparently consider knowledge outside the scope of your omniscience to be "magic", I reckon so. Then again, you've never bothered to define what you mean by "magic".

What's the difference between the biochemistry or physics of a neuron involved in consciousness and one that's not?

Nothing. There's no difference whatsoever.

Consciousness is a property of the system, not the neuron.

The neurons ARE the system under consideration. If you assert that consciousness is not a product of the physics of said system then you're arguing that consciousness itself is non-physical.

You're looking for an emergent property at the wrong level, and you're never going to understand anything until you give that up.

If you're going to make that argument, everything is an "emergent property", including the material components of the system in question. Either way, consciousness itself is still not properly accounted for in our current understanding of physics.

It's like looking for the wetness of water in hydrogen or oxygen themselves. You just ain't gonna find it there, 'cause that's the wrong level.

The "wetness" of water is itself a property of one's conscious experience of water.

Misrepresentation, and also wrong.

No, it's not a misrepresentation. You might not like the word when I use it, but it's entirely appropriate, and it's entirely accurate.

You want consciousness to be something special. It's not. It's just a computer circuit with a particular kind of feedback loop.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Wrong

All the questions have been answered, and the mistakes you made in asking them have been explained.

Again. Not that anything changed after the last time this was all explained to you.

You want magic.

Define "magic".

There is no magic.

See above.

Making an utter hash out of set theory doesn't mean you can argue for the existence of magic; it just means you've based your entire worldview on an error a bright twelve-year-old could straighten out for you if you would just listen.

Try that, for once. Rather than deciding that everyone who disagrees with you (and face it, you're outnumbered) has to be both dishonest and stupid, try examining your premises. Because they're very badly broken.

Argumentum ad populum [thats a logical fallacy, in case you were wondering ].

 

[AkuManiMani]

Show us your chaos magic, Aku. Or do you agree it doesn't exist?

Did I ever assert that it did? I don't even know what its supposed to be so how can I agree or disagree that it doesn't exist?

 

[kmortis]

I split the epistimology discussion off to its own thread. So, as has been suggested already, please return to your regularly scheduled discussion on Chaos Magick. I suggest the topic of "The Use of Sigils in Predictive Sorcery - Short Term Knowledge, or Doodling on Paper?"

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[carlitos]

It's like looking for the wetness of water in hydrogen or oxygen themselves. You just ain't gonna find it there, 'cause that's the wrong level.

The "wetness" of water is itself a property of one's conscious experience of water.

Could you please elaborate as to:
a - How your response answers PixyMisa's question, and
b - What you mean about the 'wetness' of water? I posit that water is as wet as it is, whether or not your conscious self is anywhere near it. There is wet water 3,000 feet under the ocean, and I don't have to experience it to know so.

 

[PixyMisa]

It seems to be the standard answer to anything inconvenient, no matter that it's a well defined and purely physical phenomenon.

 

[annnnoid]

So Pixy has his herd of lemmings and lapdogs well under control….and not a one dares make a peep in disagreement. Pixy declares the issue of consciousness all but resolved, and not a pin does drop. But then again, why is it that the issue invariably finds its way to the top every year of the biggest unanswered questions in science….and these are scientists who are surveyed, not lapdogs.

Evidence (why don’t we resort to the Pixy/Argent school of evidence…): Google it

Conclusion: Either the entire world scientific community is wrong, or Pixy and his sycophants are wrong. Why don’t we leave that one as an open question.

The implication being, of course, that there are some very fundamental questions that have yet to actually be answered about ourselves and the world we live in. Pixy and the lapdogs (…sounds like a good name for a band) would no doubt insist that the unanswered questions are of minor importance….consciousness being a thing of…how did you put it Pixy:

You want consciousness to be something special. It's not. It's just a computer circuit with a particular kind of feedback loop.

An amusing position which can be summed up as follows: "scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study"

(…just a note Pixy, ‘purpose’ was one of the words on that list that you and Argent have yet to respond to [those who fail to produce evidence of extraordinary claims could quite reasonably be argued to be staggeringly ignorant…but you didn’t hear that from me of course]….but since you obviously can’t I won’t bother waiting)

…but why don’t we see how the rest of the world views the issue…just to see if Pixy’s quaint little summary of the human condition is shared by others.

Christoph Koch….CalTech Cog. Sci. professor: “How brain processes translate to con¬sciousness is one of the greatest un-solved questions in science.” …Pixy: “nothing special”…Koch: “greatest unsolved question in science”….doubtless Koch is merely deluded (Koch…BTW…is one of the most highly respected cog.-sci. researchers in the world…while Pixy, on the other hand….is, as far as we can tell, nothing more than a chat-room junky).

How about Dan Dennet: “Daniel Dennett calls human consciousness just about the last surviving mystery." Pixy: ‘nothing special”…Dennet: “last surviving mystery”…Dennet must be a fool (Dennet is also one of the most highly respected cog.-sci. researchers in the world….strange…there seems to be a pattern here).

Of course….I could include Noam Chomsky here as well…but the Pixy/Argent cabal has already established that Chomsky is an irrelevant dotard….though of course, to the rest of the world he is also one of the mostly highly respected cog.-sci. researchers alive today. Hmmm….there’s that pattern again.

So we have at least two very highly respected members of the international cog.-sci. community who would seem to agree that the question of consciousness does belong on the list of the biggest unanswered questions (Pixy would no doubt relegate it to the equivalent of figuring out how to create synthetic butter).

And what other insignificant issues remain to be accounted for in our explanation of life, the universe, and everything (in other words….the unknown within which the known must…by every function of logic and sanity [except, of course, Pixy’s….which, come to think of it, might actually explain just how fundamentally warped Pixy’s POV actually is….come to think of it]…exist): What is time?...what is the universe actually made of?....why do we sleep?....where did life come from?...and of course, the perennial favorite…what is consciousness and how is it related to the human brain? Essentially….when we cannot answer who or what we are or what this reality is that creates us and everything else it is fundamentally absurd to suggest that what we don’t know is somehow bounded by what we do. Pixy will argue otherwise. When Pixy can actually answer the questions above Pixy will have some evidence to support this nonsensical claim (of course, if Pixy could answer the above questions Pixy would be a Nobel laureate and not a chat-room-junky).

And now that I have called for evidence I must not forget the stock Pixy/Argent fallback position: “Google it”…the standard evidentiary position of roadkill and dysfunctional toilet hardware.

And you’ve even acquired a groupie Pixy

Just wanted to say I sure enjoy reading Pixy's reply's & posts - they are always either remarkably informative, or sharp-as-a-titanium blade rebuttals.
Keep on keeping on Pixy

…the blind leading the blind.

So what we have, as usual, is Pixy making fantastical claims…that consciousness is a minor issue…and that it’s pretty much figured out anyway (without, as usual, a shred of supporting evidence), and claiming that any suggestion of anything psi related is merely an argument from ignorance. That it can’t happen based on Pixy’s all-but omniscient understanding of the laws of science…again, not a shred of supporting evidence provided (…oh yeah, I forgot….”google it”…silly me), and that there is absolutely no evidence to support or imply the existence of such things anyway.

….except for those few dozen links I provided a few pages ago…which doubtless not a single skeptic has even bothered to explore in the slightest…thus confirming Aku’s contention that all any of you are interested in is enshrining your own ignorance. I’ll just refer to one of them…a book which I’ve been exploring recently called Irreducible Mind. It’s 832 pages so those of you who choke on anything beyond two sentences will likely find the evidence contained therein to be beyond your meager abilities. I’d refer that category of skeptics to a publication called the National Enquirer. Essentially the book scuttles the dominant materialistic view that the human mind can be reduced to the brain alone. IOW….Pixy is wrong.

I’ll just include the book summary from Amazon for those of you who can actually handle an entire paragraph (tsig…you’d better go eat a waffle or something):

Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms. Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence, memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical' states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an alternative 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover, ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.

…and a few of the idiots who have reviewed the book:

A brilliant, heroic and astonishing revival of late 19th century ideas about cosmic consciousness, individual mental powers and the spiritual or soulful nature of human beings. -- Richard A. Shweder, William Claude Reavis Distinguished Service Professor, Department of Comparative Human Development, University of Chicago

This book is required--and fascinating!--reading. -- Charles T. Tart, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the Davis campus of the University of California and Professor at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology

This is an extraordinary book. In the arena of neuroscience of mind, it is the most exciting reading to have crossed my path in years. -- David Presti, Professor of Neurobiology, University of California-Berkeley

…and some of the idiots who wrote the book:

Dr. Edward Kelly: Research Professor in the Division of Perceptual Studies of the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia Health System.

Dr. Emily Kelly: Research Assistant Professor in the Division of Perceptual Studies of the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia Health System.

Bruce Greyson, M.D: Professor of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences and Director of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia.

So what does all this mean…? It does not mean that there is incontrovertible proof of psi or all these other issues. It does mean that there is a lot we do not know about ourselves and the universe we live in….that the subjects are extremely substantial and that there is a lot of evidence that clearly implicates the possibility of some very unusual realities. Good evidence does not become bad evidence just because the phenomena it supports appear improbable.

 

[dlorde]

... I'm suggesting that the auditory "voices" in people's minds are autonomous conscious entities and are possibly not confined to individual brains.

The first part seems a reasonable hypothesis - we do know of circumstances where a single brain could (arguably) host more than one to-some-degree-autonomous conscious entity (depending on your definition of consciousness) - split-brain patients. AIUI, most neuroscientists would disagree with that suggestion, but there is interesting evidence, and it is at least debatable. In that situation, only one entity usually has direct access to the language/vocal areas, so it's not a good match, but possibly not a million miles away (I'm thinking here of a recent documentary showing a split-brain patient whose left arm would fight and try to undo what the right arm did - spooky).

The second part has nothing going for it (no evidence), and plenty against it - appears to contradict known physics, and if you accept the first part (dual consciousness in split-brain subjects) you can't really accept the second. So it is not a reasonable hypothesis. Bottom of the in-tray.

I'm saying consciousness is a physical medium IAOI.

Made of what?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy

Pixy ...

Pixy ...

Pixy ... Pixy

Pixy ...

Pixy ...

Pixy ...

Pixy … Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy

Pixy ...

Pixy ...



Pixy ... Pixy ...

Pixy ...

Feindbild.

 

[Sledge]

Did I ever assert that it did? I don't even know what its supposed to be so how can I agree or disagree that it doesn't exist?

Then stop derailing the discussion.

So, we've got one person, Limbo, who thinks chaos magic exists. Any chance he could show us it in action?

 

[Robin]

So Pixy has his herd of lemmings and lapdogs well under control….and not a one dares make a peep in disagreement. Pixy declares the issue of consciousness all but resolved, and not a pin does drop.

You don't read this forum much do you?

 

[Robin]

Then stop derailing the discussion.

So, we've got one person, Limbo, who thinks chaos magic exists. Any chance he could show us it in action?

I wonder if even Limbo seriously thinks it exists.

 

[dlorde]

...
And what other insignificant issues remain to be accounted for in our explanation of life, the universe, and everything (in other words….the unknown within which the known must…by every function of logic and sanity [except, of course, Pixy’s….which, come to think of it, might actually explain just how fundamentally warped Pixy’s POV actually is….come to think of it]…exist):

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

 

[The Norseman]

I wonder if even Limbo seriously thinks it exists.

I'm seriously wondering if Limbo exists.

 

[Robin]

…and a few of the idiots who have reviewed the book:
...

…and some of the idiots who wrote the book:

Your point being?

 

[Nonpareil]

But then again, why is it that the issue invariably finds its way to the top every year of the biggest unanswered questions in science.

Care to give the source that you're using for this claim?

Evidence (why don’t we resort to the Pixy/Argent school of evidence…): Google it

Nope. Not going to cut it here, I'm afraid. Who, exactly, annually declares that we don't understand anything about the source of consciousness? Who denies that we can and have detected emotions?

Conclusion: Either the entire world scientific community is wrong, or Pixy and his sycophants are wrong. Why don’t we leave that one as an open question.

Or we can do what logic dictates, and declare it a false dichotomy. One of the myriad of other options is that you are talking about something that you do not understand.

[those who fail to produce evidence of extraordinary claims could quite reasonably be argued to be staggeringly ignorant…but you didn’t hear that from me of course]….but since you obviously can’t I won’t bother waiting)

There is a difference between "can't" and "won't". If you aren't willing to even spend ten seconds on Google after I gave you the link to the appropriate Google search, there is absolutely no point in attempting to actually present you with anything. Not only are you ignorant, you want to be ignorant.

…but why don’t we see how the rest of the world views the issue…just to see if Pixy’s quaint little summary of the human condition is shared by others.

Christoph Koch….CalTech Cog. Sci. professor: “How brain processes translate to con¬sciousness is one of the greatest un-solved questions in science.” …Pixy: “nothing special”…Koch: “greatest unsolved question in science”….doubtless Koch is merely deluded (Koch…BTW…is one of the most highly respected cog.-sci. researchers in the world…while Pixy, on the other hand….is, as far as we can tell, nothing more than a chat-room junky).

So you're still strawmanning, then?

Of course….I could include Noam Chomsky here as well…but the Pixy/Argent cabal has already established that Chomsky is an irrelevant dotard.

That's a "yes", then. Moving on...

when we cannot answer who or what we are or what this reality is that creates us and everything else it is fundamentally absurd to suggest that what we don’t know is somehow bounded by what we do.

Non sequitur fallacy. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

So what we have, as usual, is Pixy making fantastical claims…that consciousness is a minor issue…

Straw man.

and that it’s pretty much figured out anyway (without, as usual, a shred of supporting evidence)

The basic mechanics, yes. The details, no.

There is a difference between saying "we understand consciousness" and "we understand every detail of consciousness". Why can you not understand this?

and claiming that any suggestion of anything psi related is merely an argument from ignorance.

And straw man again.

<snip insults, repetition, and argument-ad-quotes>

So what does all this mean…? It does not mean that there is incontrovertible proof of psi or all these other issues.

That's one thing you've gotten right in this post. Keep it up. Some day you may actually manage to write one that isn't total bollocks.

 

[The Man]

Feindbild.

 

[annnnoid]

Your point being?

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.

Hi, all.

Still discussing the simulations, eh?

Well, I've been reading my new cognitive neuroscience books, and although I'm not all the way through (by a long shot), so far the computationalist view -- as it has been presented here -- is mentioned only to point out its fatal flaws.

When I get some time, I'll have to post some choice excerpts.

Suffice it to say that absolutely no one agrees with Pixy Misa that the phenomenon of consciousness is currently understood, and there is no indication that anyone believes that such a behavior can be purely programmed (rather than built) into a machine, and no trace of the tortured interpretations of Church-Turing.

………………

The fact remains that currently we have no explanatory framework which might tell us why a given neural state is correlated with a given conscious experience.

And the fact that the discovery of such a framework would necessarily lead to deeper questions... that does not in any way imply that the framework, when we discover it, would indeed provide an explanatory link between the two sets of observations.

………………

Originally Posted by PixyMisa
Yes, what I am saying - and I'm far from alone here - is that consciousness in and of itself is actually dead simple and fully understood. What is complex and hard to understand is all the other stuff that brains do - sensory processing and language and memory association and so on

….to which Piggy responds:
Then please back up this claim with evidence, since you seem to be in disagreement with all the brain scientists I've ever read.

(….to which Pixy, quite typically, responds with nothing…not even a ‘google it’!!!...perhaps he needs some of your deep wisdom there Argent)

……….

And in any case, this does not change the fact that currently we have no such framework that would allow us to understand NCCs (neural correlates of consciousness), even if we were able to describe all of them right now.

……..

even if we were to discover tomorrow all of the neural corrolates of every possible state of human consciousness (NCCs), we'd still have a problem -- we would have no way of explaining why the NCC associated with, say, seeing a green light is correlated with that particular conscious experience and not some other conscious experience or none at all.

In fact, we don't even have a way of imagining the solution to that problem!

……

Gazzaniga's point is that even if we were to discover tomorrow what the entire gamut of NCCs was for all possible conscious experiences, we still wouldn't know why any given neural state was associated with any given conscious experience.

 

[PixyMisa]

Made of what?

Made of consciouness.

No, it makes no sense at all. We know that's not what consciousness is. (Cue much spluttering from the reality-challenged set.)

This is what I was saying about AkuManiMani's core epistemological position; it is to science what "Freeman on the Land" is to jurisprudence. But that is apparently a topic for another thread.

 

[PixyMisa]

You don't read this forum much do you?