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

[WWHP]

Query: Does Pixy Mesa Ayn Rand much?

 

[WWHP]

I'm glad this discussion is continuing with a new round of folks. I want to clarify something, because I suspect the discussion is slowly going to veer off course - some of you may be projecting your dualism on to me - so let me clarify to come back to center.

Let me title this tirade "Bubblefish on Materialism"


I am not a denier of materialism, and there is no reason to argue for it's value in our discourse. Materialism is fundamental to both the universe and any relevant philosophy that wishes to understand it. It is fundamental to my philosophy.

The key word is that it is 'fundamental' and not 'complete' (blubro: please note our discussion on Godel). I am a transcendent and experience that which is non material - therefore, I am only arguing for allowing for the wisdom of this proposition.

"A physical scientist does not introduce awareness (sensation or perception) into his theories, and having thus removed the mind from nature, he cannot expect to find it there. - Schrödinger 1958"


and that's it

 

[WWHP]

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.

I look forward to continuing this discussion with blubro. So far, his points are not producing contradictions and I can follow him.

For me, you are just creating dualities, pitting one philosophy against another in your mind.

That is YOUR dualistic projection, and the ONLY way what I am saying can possibly appear to you! My philosophy is elegantly comprehensive and integrative. I have integrated both dualities and am providing a transcending order.

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."

You have provided me with no inconsistencies in my argument that you can argue without producing contradictions yourself. I can only evaluate a contradiction as something irrational and inconsistent by inherent definition or as a creative expression of an transcendent - either of which nullifies your position as you argue for it.

Does it occur to you that you're attached to an inconsistent philosophy for purely personal reasons?

Well it certainly occurs to me that I may have an inconsistent philosophy, but that is one of the points of this whole project with the article. Show me my inconsistency. Show me where I produce contradictions. Show me where I am incomplete.

In short, SHOW ME THE MONEY.

I am ultimately an agnostic. I am not attached to this side nor that side. If your position is tenable, reasonable, able to withstand deconstruction, then I shall adopt it and thank you all the more for it!

I don't think ayahuasca is going to make you any more whole. I think you just need to stop needlessly creating dualisms.

Your doing that projecty thingy again.

 

[Sunsneezer]

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.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ayahuasca/ayahuasca.shtml
and the experiences page:
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_Ayahuasca.shtml
Which is mostly positive, but not exclusively so.

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?

My concern relates more to psychological damage than brain damage. Like other psychotropics, the context in which you take the drug plays an important role... Your mental and physical state, the people, the place are all part of the experience, obviously. I just wanted to mitigate your proposition that ayahuasca can only contribute to one's well-being and that no evidence to the contray exists, when in fact some report short to long term negative effects. In such cases they would probably have been better off staying away from it, at least in the particular occasion in which it has been made available to them.

 

[WWHP]

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ayahuasca/ayahuasca.shtml
and the experiences page:
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_Ayahuasca.shtml
Which is mostly positive, but not exclusively so.

I'm not sure I agree that they are not all positive in terms of something learned and gained. Even people who report nightmarish experiences (of which I have also had) report feeling great after a day or two. Me personally, I have not talked to anyone who has regretted such experiences, nor did I find one on erowid.

My concern relates more to psychological damage than brain damage. Like other psychotropics, the context in which you take the drug plays an important role... Your mental and physical state, the people, the place are all part of the experience, obviously. I just wanted to mitigate your proposition that ayahuasca can only contribute to one's well-being and that no evidence to the contray exists, when in fact some report short to long term negative effects. In such cases they would probably have been better off staying away from it, at least in the particular occasion in which it has been made available to them.

I think you make a fair point, set and setting (Leary, Albert) plays a significant role in the value of the experience.

I don't think there is any psychological damage from taking ayahuasca, although other compounds I think it can happen. I don't accept a 'nightmarish' experience as a negative one, those can be the most rewarding to have, the most transformative. I am not aware of any study which has shown any long term psychological damage from ayahuasca. We already have our test group, right? There are significant numbers of people who have consumed ayahuasca thousands of times in their lives, some drink it a few times a week, some even every day.

That doesn't mean this is for everybody. I assume people gravitate towards it for healing, curiosity, or even bizarre reasons like gaining power and knowledge to harm, control others, which is a problem in the amazon. Shaman wars do exist and it's a very perplexing element in that environment. There is a quote in Steve Beyer's book from a source in the amazon. "There are good shamans, and bad shamans, but they're all bad." there is some zen in that phrase, I don't take it at face value.

 

[Nick227]

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?

My memory may not serve me correct here, but I seem to recall that the court cases were not about the drug being dangerous but whether it was an authentic religous sacrament for the group using it and thus schedule exempt. DMT is Sched 1 in the US, making possession illegal whether or not the drug is deemed physically harmful. Was it the Santo Daime's who were being prosecuted? I recall they won 5-10 years ago in Holland in a similar case.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

My concern relates more to psychological damage than brain damage. Like other psychotropics, the context in which you take the drug plays an important role... Your mental and physical state, the people, the place are all part of the experience, obviously. I just wanted to mitigate your proposition that ayahuasca can only contribute to one's well-being and that no evidence to the contray exists, when in fact some report short to long term negative effects. In such cases they would probably have been better off staying away from it, at least in the particular occasion in which it has been made available to them.

We don't know the long-term effects of taking yage, because there aren't enough Westerners regularly taking it to warrant a study or make it meaningful. But there is a trend for recreational drugs previously presumed harmless to be later found to be not so good. See ketamine, ecstasy, stronger varieties of cannabis. Whether one would consider ayahuasca a recreational drug is debatable of course.

I've taken it and didn't consider it harmful. The western shaman was ok, I felt safe, but being subjected to his collection of Krishnamurti lectures whilst on it was a bit of a drag. However, I'm sure some people have gone a bit nuts with it, and prior history of significant psychiatric disturbance should definitely be considered exclusion criteria.

There can be a tendency for new-agers to consider that these traditional ethnic entheogens are super great panaceas for all human ailments. And that they're being discrimated against by law-agencies to prevent Westerners healing themselves. IMO, this view rarely bears much scrutiny, and I've followed a few, as they say. Psychedelics are a double-edged sword. On balance I'd say they are as likely to **** you up as much as heal you.

Nick

 

[Trent Wray]

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

Ahem.

Such a strong reaction!

Query: Does Pixy Mesa Ayn Rand much?

I read the Fountainhead when I was 17 in one sitting and it changed my life. Seriously.

-------------

I'll continue to lurk a little and comment here and there if that's all-right BF. I've noticed you kind of like saying, "I want to continue talking to this person, but not that person," and I can respect that.

 

[Maia]

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.

Er. maybe not such a great idea. However, Topamax is by far the best anticonvulsant for severe childhood epilepsy, so a lot of children HAVE been exposed for long periods of time to a medication that has at least one of the same major effects as ayahuasca (serotonin agonism as the 5HT2A receptor.) Actually, topiramate is the best all-around AE drug, hands down. Nothing works as well. But the side effects can be appalling (kidney functioning-related,mostly) so it's not a first-line med.

I read some of those weird ayahuasca experiences... not exactly what I'd call controlled studies, but I will say, for whatever it's worth, that in this anecdotal context, at least, the people who had psychological problems after taking it certainly seemed as if they would have had them anyway.

Anyway, here's why it annoys me to have Dennett debate someone like David Chalmers-- it's just not a high-quality debate at all. Here's an example of one that is: Steven Rose vs. Steven Pinker. If you read his writings, nobody could be more of a materialist than neuroscientist Steven Rose, or have less patience for qualia, or dualism, or hard problems of consciousness. But he's profoundly opposed to many of Pinker's ideas, and he lays out all the empirically supported reasons why, step by step by step. And I have to say, Rose makes a much better case.

Similarly, I want to see Dennett debate someone at his own level. If I see him at a podium opposite Elizabeth Vrba or Leon Kamin or Richard Lewontin, then great. I'd have a lot more respect for him. (Of course, I can't say for sure if *they'd* be willing to have the debate!) But somebody like Chalmers isn't good target practice for anyone who even has a reasonable amount of common sense. Pretty much all you'd have to do would be to snicker at the hair.

 

[blobru]

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

Generating meaning that transcends our own mortality... We should all be so lucky.

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

Ok. I should point out here that Godel was a logician; so talking about Godel in terms of systems theory is speculation. It makes sense if the universe can be described as a computer (you had a link to a couple of physicists who argue that). If it can, then Godel (via Turing, who used his theorems to define computability) becomes relevant to discussions of how simple systems might create complexity in the physical world, not just the logical world. Because logic is about creating axiomatic systems; physics is about finding the one that fits reality.

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?

According to Godel, a [sufficiently complex axiomatic] system generates many statements that are provable within the system; however, it also generates some statements that are true (evaluated outside the system), but not provable (within the system). Now, as long as it's consistent (free of contradiction), one statement the system generates will say that it's consistent, but it won't be able to prove it (if it's inconsistent, otoh, it will be able to prove both that it's inconsistent and consistent). So, systems that tell the truth can't tell the truth (or lie) about themselves; whereas systems that lie can both tell the truth (admit they lie) and lie (swear they don't) about themselves! (Hardly seems fair, but that's logic). It's thanks to Godel's theorems we can see this paradox from outside the system, even distinguish true systems from false (inconsistent); we just can't evaluate it within the system (because to do so yields a contradiction).

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?

It may be implicit in the axioms (rules for generating statements) of the system if it's sufficiently complex (can number its statements). Not sure if that's what you mean.

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?

Umm, well... even as I may be stretching Godel's wings a little [a lot?] too far with the systems theory talk, you may be trying to fit him into too narrow a pigeonhole (re your idea of dialectical, transcendent truth). I think that's my fault for using similar language to engage the concepts and make the grand argument. So warning: they may sound similar, but they're not necessarily the same.

also, do you need a roommate?

Maybe a cat.

 

[WWHP]

Generating meaning that transcends our own mortality... We should all be so lucky.

Five stars.

Ok. I should point out here that Godel was a logician; so talking about Godel in terms of systems theory is speculation. It makes sense if the universe can be described as a computer (you had a link to a couple of physicists who argue that). If it can, then Godel (via Turing, who used his theorems to define computability) becomes relevant to discussions of how simple systems might create complexity in the physical world, not just the logical world. Because logic is about creating axiomatic systems; physics is about finding the one that fits reality.

First off, I want to say how nice it is to have to spend time with a comment so I can digest it. A real treat. Your an excellent communicator and I appreciate how comprehensive you appear to conceptualize and frame things. Respect. [Bubblefish does an Ali G]

Okay, I follow that, but a question I have, and the answer to this question to me is my big unknown. Does it matter the system of logic? Does this apply to ternary logical systems? That's where I am intrigued by Godel. What happens when Godel meets ternary? Anything interesting happen or is it the same old news?

When I get this answer, I may need to grill you on it a bit if you do not mind. Wiling to offer special prizes for ideas that assist my own transcendence

According to Godel, a [sufficiently complex axiomatic] system generates many statements that are provable within the system; however, it also generates some statements that are true (evaluated outside the system), but not provable (within the system).

Okay, this is directly what I am referring to in my model. To me, this is how I understand the relationship between bivalent and ternary logical systems.

To humanize this meaning a bit, to me it's summarized in a very old Hebrew saying, which I will paraphrase since I forget it's original incarnation; "Telling the truth to someone who is unable to comprehend it is the same thing as lying to them."

Does any of this make any sense what so ever to you?

Now, as long as it's consistent (free of contradiction), one statement the system generates will say that it's consistent, but it won't be able to prove it (if it's inconsistent, otoh, it will be able to prove both that it's inconsistent and consistent). So, systems that tell the truth can't tell the truth (or lie) about themselves; whereas systems that lie can both tell the truth (admit they lie) and lie (swear they don't) about themselves! (Hardly seems fair, but that's logic). It's thanks to Godel's theorems we can see this paradox from outside the system, even distinguish true systems from false (inconsistent); we just can't evaluate it within the system (because to do so yields a contradiction).

Again, this rings true to me when I evaluate bivalent and ternary systems interacting with each other.

I hope I'm not completely lost here because how can I explain that your making such sense to me?

It may be implicit in the axioms (rules for generating statements) of the system if it's sufficiently complex (can number its statements). Not sure if that's what you mean.

I'm gonna phrase the question in my own language, you tell me how you roll with it?

You have a bivalent system [0/1] and a ternary system [0/1/2]. Does one emerge from the other and how can you tell which?

Umm, well... even as I may be stretching Godel's wings a little [a lot?] too far with the systems theory talk, you may be trying to fit him into too narrow a pigeonhole (re your idea of dialectical, transcendent truth). I think that's my fault for using similar language to engage the concepts and make the grand argument. So warning: they may sound similar, but they're not necessarily the same.

Oh, I definitely see that they are not the same, and I definitely see now that they are similar (was insecure about that). Now that they are similar, I want to know or define what they share in common for them to be similar. That is the question!

Maybe a cat.

How about a gecko? (where is the appropriate smiley when you need it?)

 

[WWHP]

We don't know the long-term effects of taking yage, because there aren't enough Westerners regularly taking it to warrant a study or make it meaningful.

Yage? Nick, I did not know you were also a hipster.

But there is a trend for recreational drugs previously presumed harmless to be later found to be not so good. See ketamine, ecstasy, stronger varieties of cannabis. Whether one would consider ayahuasca a recreational drug is debatable of course.

I don't think it's fair to put ayahuasca in that category, not only because it is not a recreational drug (many people joke after an ayahuasca experience by stating that if anything, the experience was far from recreational), but because of the history. Other than marijuana, I am not aware of any drug (off the top of my head) that has such a vast history. (okay maybe ibogaine)

I've taken it and didn't consider it harmful. The western shaman was ok, I felt safe, but being subjected to his collection of Krishnamurti lectures whilst on it was a bit of a drag. However, I'm sure some people have gone a bit nuts with it, and prior history of significant psychiatric disturbance should definitely be considered exclusion criteria.

A materialist who reads Joseph Campbell, allows for a transcendent, and takes ayahuasca. See ol pal, I told you some materialists would call you a woo. [said with hugs not hurts :]

I wasn't aware you had the experience before in our discussion. You make a good point that addresses something I have failed to. Ayahuasca in a proper setting, which is traditional in nature, involves not only ceremony and icaros (chanting), and perhaps a shamanic trick or too, but also involves up to 46 other 'master' plants, all of which are used in healing process. Ayahuasca just plays a role, but it is not the sole 'cause' of the healing. Whoever the shaman is is very important. There are plenty of shenanigans out there. I have encountered one or two flaky shamans.

I do know from direct personal accounts that 'crazy people' can handle ayahuasca. A friend of mine is studying in Peru with a curandero right now. They had a women come and stay who had schizophrenia. After a few weeks, the woman, and her husband, felt she was 'cured'. Now I can't vouch for that, but I hear plenty of stories like this. Ayahuasca cures the crazies.

I myself before my introduction to Ayahuasca was plagued with anxieties (the common ones that effect westerners, financial stresses that arise from providing for a child,making ends meet, dealing with failures and rejections) that were tormenting me for a year or so. Everyday I would have anxiety. At one point, I just accepted that was my life, everything I tried or knew to do was not working. I had hard times falling asleep. I had so much stress in my body that I would need an extended hot bath just to fall asleep. Now that's anxiety, not psychotic or 'crazy' by modern standards, but certainly not robust mental health. After a few months of Ayahuasca, it all disappeared. And I haven't had any since.

Now that's my own honesty. evaluate it based on how much you believe I value my own honesty.

There can be a tendency for new-agers to consider that these traditional ethnic entheogens are super great panaceas for all human ailments.

I don't think it's fair for you to categorize the healing aspect the way you did.

Well, some shamans are claiming success with cancer, aids, and pretty much all human ailments, and there are anecdotal reports of profound healing. Not saying that makes it real, but it's not coming from the 'New Agers' who claim they can happen, it's coming from people who also claim they did happen.

http://www.realitysandwich.com/how_shipibo_healers_cured_my_brain_tumor

And that they're being discrimated against by law-agencies to prevent Westerners healing themselves. IMO, this view rarely bears much scrutiny, and I've followed a few, as they say. Psychedelics are a double-edged sword. On balance I'd say they are as likely to **** you up as much as heal you.

Nick

I don't believe it's a 50/50 proposition by any means, I don't think that's fair to the body of research of psychedelics. I do agree that there is potential harm in all of them with the exception of ayahuasca, and in all of this I agree and accept that set and setting is an important part of the process. It ain't like poppin' an aspirin, you can hold it in the same light to judge it's efficacy.

 

[PixyMisa]

Query: Does Pixy Mesa Ayn Rand much?

Assuming the missing verb is "read":

Not a fan.

Some of her ideas were good; some were, while not entirely correct, at least an understandable reaction to being born in Russia and living through the communist revolution; and some were just wrong.

Her writing falls into the just wrong category.

 

[WWHP]

My apologies to all. I have mentioned Steve Beyer plenty, but not once have I posted his blog, which has a vast library of great articles on the subject, many of which appear in his book, 'Singing to the Plants' which I highly recommend for his scholarly approach which is both open minded and skeptical. A western psychologist and attorney, he is now a proper 'curandero' himself, training in the Amazon with a number of shamanic healers.

http://www.singingtotheplants.com/blog/

 

[PixyMisa]

Hmm. The first post I read - effectively a debunking of the Jungian notion of the collective unconscious - wasn't bad, if somewhat wordy. Certainly better than one would expect from a blog titled "Singing to the Plants".

I'll read further and see how it goes.

 

[Nick227]

I don't think it's fair to put ayahuasca in that category, not only because it is not a recreational drug (many people joke after an ayahuasca experience by stating that if anything, the experience was far from recreational), but because of the history. Other than marijuana, I am not aware of any drug (off the top of my head) that has such a vast history. (okay maybe ibogaine)

Well, you do smile a lot with the first glass, if I recall. But basically I agree that it's not a recreational drug, and that it's probably fairly safe to take now and again as long as certain high-risk groups are excluded.

A materialist who reads Joseph Campbell, allows for a transcendent, and takes ayahuasca. See ol pal, I told you some materialists would call you a woo.

Well, I had a JC book about 10 years and I think I read a bit here and there now and again, as you do. It certainly didn't leave any meaningful impact on me. Your "transcendent" I've already tried to explain to you, and I took aya once about 5,6 years back.

Can I suggest something, BF? Maybe if you didn't try to categorise me and others so much and just stayed with what we're saying. What do you think?

I don't think it's fair for you to categorize the healing aspect the way you did.

Something I feel I have been trying to point out to you pretty much throughout this thread is that the whole shamanic perspective is flawed. Believing yourself to be a self in need of healing is only one of the perspectives materialism affords. If you understand the true nature of the self, on a personal level, the truth about "healing" is laid bare. But because you can't grasp materialism, at least to the point where you can see the so-called "hard problem" for what it truly is, you can't grasp just what I'm talking about. With all your judgments and categorising, BF, you completely overlook what is right in front of you.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't think it's fair to put ayahuasca in that category, not only because it is not a recreational drug (many people joke after an ayahuasca experience by stating that if anything, the experience was far from recreational), but because of the history. Other than marijuana, I am not aware of any drug (off the top of my head) that has such a vast history.

Caffeine? Nicotine? Opium? Coca? Betel?

Or how about alcohol?

 

[PixyMisa]

Something I feel I have been trying to point out to you pretty much throughout this thread is that the whole shamanic perspective is flawed. Believing yourself to be a self in need of healing is only one of the perspectives materialism affords. If you understand the true nature of the self, on a personal level, the truth about "healing" is laid bare. But because you can't grasp materialism, at least to the point where you can see the so-called "hard problem" for what it truly is, you can't grasp just what I'm talking about. With all your judgments and categorising, BF, you completely overlook what is right in front of you.

Next you'll be telling us that the Emperor has no clothes!

 

[Limbo]

How about a gecko? (where is the appropriate smiley when you need it?)

Heh, I have two leopard geckos and two cats. I ain't got me no fish tho, bubble or otherwise.

 

[Limbo]

Shaman wars do exist and it's a very perplexing element in that environment.

Psychic "darts" seem to be the default weapon. In this case, the accidental "dart" was in the symbolic form of a spider:

Out of My Mouth There Flew a Spider: An Ayahuasca Monologue