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

[Philosaur]

ah - ha! so there is a little man in the brain after all

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8265592/Tracking-the-tell-tale-signs-of-pure-genius.html

That's a--well, uh...interesting interpretation of the article. But given that you view mushroom-fueled hallucinations as communication with our intergalactic overlords, I suppose you're at least consistent.

 

[WWHP]

That's a--well, uh...interesting interpretation of the article.

thanks, i figured all you psuedo skeptics would get a kick out of that interpretation - that's why I posted it here

But given that you view mushroom-fueled hallucinations as communication with our intergalactic overlords, I suppose you're at least consistent.

nah - not me, you must be confusing me with those ideas in your head that you confuse as reality...again. I think you projecting your consistencies on to ol Bubblefish - a predictable behavior often recorded amongst the pseudo skeptics.

 

[Philosaur]

thanks, i figured all you psuedo skeptics would get a kick out of that interpretation - that's why I posted it here

Ah, yes. The ole' Pee Wee Herman retort: "I meant to do that."

And maybe you did. Was my reply everything you hoped it would be? All the outrage, flailing, and gnashing of teeth you hoped to provoke in us skeptics? Glad I could oblige.

nah - not me, you must be confusing me with those ideas in your head that you confuse as reality...again. I think you projecting your consistencies on to ol Bubblefish - a predictable behavior often recorded amongst the pseudo skeptics.

I've followed this thread from the beginning, and I think I can safely surmise that you believe that hallucinations caused by ingesting psychoactive plants contain supernatural messages information not already existent in the mind of the user.

If I'm wrong, then state in plain English that you do not believe this to be the case.

ETA: I realized that you would pounce on the "supernatural" word there, so I tried to make it more clear.

 

[WWHP]

Ah, yes. The ole' Pee Wee Herman retort: "I meant to do that."

And maybe you did. Was my reply everything you hoped it would be?

the psuedo skeptics never fail to disappoint.

All the outrage, flailing, and gnashing of teeth you hoped to provoke in us skeptics? Glad I could oblige.

interesting to note how 'emotional' you describe the reactions of you, the 'pseudo' skeptics who have somehow convinced themselves that they really are skeptical about reality.

I've followed this thread from the beginning, and I think I can safely surmise that you believe that hallucinations caused by ingesting psychoactive plants contain supernatural messages information not already existent in the mind of the user.

If you have followed this thread, then you would have gathered quit clearly that I am quite agnostic on the matter.

If I'm wrong, then state in plain English that you do not believe this to be the case.

I am agnostic on the matter - just like I have been consistently throughout this thread.

ETA: I realized that you would pounce on the "supernatural" word there, so I tried to make it more clear.

thanks, because the word supernatural is a meaningless term to me and acts as a weasal word for pseudo skeptics.

cheers

 

[Philosaur]

the psuedo skeptics never fail to disappoint.

At least learn to spell your limp-wristed insults correctly.

interesting to note how 'emotional' you describe the reactions of you, the 'pseudo' skeptics who have somehow convinced themselves that they really are skeptical about reality.

You go, Freud! You've obviously studied the twisted minds of us skeptics so thoroughly we'd be foolish to spar with the likes of you.

If you have followed this thread, then you would have gathered quit clearly that I am quite agnostic on the matter.

I am agnostic on the matter - just like I have been consistently throughout this thread.

Oh, you aren't actually asserting anything, you're just asking questions, right? There's a term for that: JAQing off.

thanks, because the word supernatural is a meaningless term to me and acts as a weasal word for pseudo skeptics.

cheers

su·per·nat·u·ral  
[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

See, the word has meaning to most English speakers.

 

[WWHP]

At least learn to spell your limp-wristed insults correctly.

I don't believe pseudo skeptic is an insult - i think it's an accurate observation and not sure what you mean by 'limp wristed' other than some sort of juvenile taunt - are you for real?

You go, Freud! You've obviously studied the twisted minds of us skeptics so thoroughly we'd be foolish to spar with the likes of you.

speak for yourself

Oh, you aren't actually asserting anything, you're just asking questions, right? There's a term for that: JAQing off.

I asserting that I am skeptical of many claims put forth in this thread - especially the ones that consistently deconstructed into contradictions.

su·per·nat·u·ral  
[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

See, the word has meaning to most English speakers.

I think you should know that words are not descriptions of things they are proscriptions for things. Of course a word has a definition - but do you actually expect the definition of the word to actually supply the word with philosophical objectivity?

To assume a supernatural experience MUST relate to something that is beyond nature and attributable to goblins and ghosts while denying their existence at the same time surely is a meaningless and circular philosophy that tells us nothing of the experience or the ghosts or the goblins.

Therefore meaningless philosophically.

Cheers!

 

[Philosaur]

I don't believe pseudo skeptic is an insult - i think it's an accurate observation and not sure what you mean by 'limp wristed' other than some sort of juvenile taunt - are you for real?

If you don't understand that "pseudo-skeptic" would be insulting to members of a skeptics' forum, then you are far more dense than I've given you credit for. And I mean "limp wristed" in the usual sense: the insult was half-hearted, a passive-aggressive slap, like one would give with a limp wrist.

I asserting that I am skeptical of many claims put forth in this thread - especially the ones that consistently deconstructed into contradictions.

Uh huh. Get much satisfaction out of vapid assertions that sound deep?

I think you should know that words are not descriptions of things they are proscriptions for things.

pro·scribe (pr-skrb)
tr.v. pro·scribed, pro·scrib·ing, pro·scribes
1. To denounce or condemn.
2. To prohibit; forbid. See Synonyms at forbid.
3.
a. To banish or outlaw (a person).
b. To publish the name of (a person) as outlawed.

So...what are you trying to say here?

Of course a word has a definition - but do you actually expect the definition of the word to actually supply the word with philosophical objectivity?

To assume a supernatural experience MUST relate to something that is beyond nature and attributable to goblins and ghosts while denying their existence at the same time surely is a meaningless and circular philosophy that tells us nothing of the experience or the ghosts or the goblins.

Therefore meaningless philosophically.

Supernatural means that some phenomenon operates or exists outside the bounds of recognized natural law.

It does *not* mean that there will never be a natural law discovered to account for the phenomenon.

It does *not* mean that it's impossible for the thing to exist.

What's funny is that I--or any other skeptic--can say that I have seen no convincing evidence for some given phenomenon and so I do not believe in it, and believers read that as a concrete and certain denial that the phenomenon could ever occur.

What's more: I don't care what you or any other person on this forum believes. I don't care what you tell your friends and family. I don't care how you live your life.

But, to whatever extent you participate on this forum, I will read your posts. I will point out logical errors, factual errors, and probably grammar and spelling errors too. I'll celebrate whenever you make a worthwhile point or raise an interesting question. And I fully expect you to treat me similarly.

It's just that, in my humble opinion, you haven't yet made a worthwhile point or raised an interesting question.

Anyway, this thread is boring now since it's just you and me sniping. Maybe we'll cross paths again in another thread.

 

[TempleJohn]

Haha, wow. I was informed via email that there were some vital signs on this old carcass. Nice timing; I've just watched an excellent presentation showing why mind-body dualism is rational and necessary in science and psychiatry, though not in the commonly held Cartesian sense. Since I feel this video does a great job at representing my position on consciousness in this thread, I'd like to make the link available to everybody here (reminds me of how Dr. Phil "makes [insert rehab/therapy/surgery] available" to his beloved guests, hehe).

http://www.youtube.com/user/jockmclaren47#grid/user/0A29D0004125AC50

 

[WWHP]

oh this discussion is still alive alright, at least the 'memes' discussed herein are! This discussion referenced Google Consciousness about a year ago, and low and behold, a year later, some dashing young fellow presents a TED talk on the subject matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGF9NbPFfRo

there is a thread on the JREF talking about it in science if anyone is interested.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7270686#post7270686

the memes....are....alive...and spreading..

 

[Brainache]

So you went into the jungle, drank some ayuasqi whatever to discover Google?

Is this some secret shamanistic jungle google, or the regular one?

Can Google tell us anything we don't already know?

 

[WWHP]

So you went into the jungle, drank some ayuasqi whatever to discover Google?

Is this some secret shamanistic jungle google, or the regular one?

Can Google tell us anything we don't already know?

Google is a metaphor for how the traditional usage of ayahuasca with other plants works amongst native practitioners. Just a metaphor.


Google collectively cannot tell humanity anything we do not already know collectively, of course, but individually it tells us quite a lot. Actually, it may tell us something we don't already know - which information in our collective network has the most social credibility. That's probably information we did not already know nor could.

 

[zooterkin]

Google is a metaphor for how the traditional usage of ayahuasca with other plants works amongst native practitioners. Just a metaphor.

Just not a very good one. Google gives me access to the knowledge of millions of others. Ayahuasca gives access to nothing except a drug-disordered brain.

 

[WWHP]

never knew you tried ayahausca before Zoo

regardless, it's not that it's a metaphor for how gringos like u or I would use it, it's a metaphor for how it is used amongst indigenous peoples in relationship to other plants.

for you to determine that it was not a proper metaphor, you would need to have pretty extensive anthropological knowledge regarding 'vegetalismo' or the medicine path of the Shipibo-Conibo people.

And you don't. but nice to see that , years later, you're still willing to be contradictory just for the sake of making ol fun loving bubblefish wrong.

even when you don't know what your talking about.

or when you dont even know what I'm talking about!

 

[zooterkin]

never knew you tried ayahausca before Zoo

regardless, it's not that it's a metaphor for how gringos like u or I would use it, it's a metaphor for how it is used amongst indigenous peoples in relationship to other plants.

for you to determine that it was not a proper metaphor, you would need to have pretty extensive anthropological knowledge regarding 'vegetalismo' or the medicine path of the Shipibo-Conibo people.

And you don't. but nice to see that , years later, you're still willing to be contradictory just for the sake of making ol fun loving bubblefish wrong.

even when you don't know what your talking about.

or when you dont even know what I'm talking about!

Which part of my description are you taking issue with? Are you suggesting that the brain of someone under the influence of ayahuasca is operating normally? Or are you saying that users have access to something outside their brain? If the former, then you're surely contradicting yourself, since it would be suggesting that the drug had no effect. If the latter, then you'll have to provide something more in the way of evidence than mere assertion.

 

[dafydd]

An Awakening

"He who knows not and knows not he knows not, He is a fool - Shun him. He who knows not and knows he knows not, He is simple - Teach him. He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep - Awaken him. He who knows and knows that he knows, He is wise - Follow him" ~ Bruce Lee

I didn't know that Bruce Lee spoke Pure Gibberish.

 

[dafydd]

never knew you tried ayahausca before Zoo

regardless, it's not that it's a metaphor for how gringos like u or I would use it, it's a metaphor for how it is used amongst indigenous peoples in relationship to other plants.

for you to determine that it was not a proper metaphor, you would need to have pretty extensive anthropological knowledge regarding 'vegetalismo' or the medicine path of the Shipibo-Conibo people.

And you don't. but nice to see that , years later, you're still willing to be contradictory just for the sake of making ol fun loving bubblefish wrong.

even when you don't know what your talking about.

or when you dont even know what I'm talking about!

I do, I am a survivor of the Sixties. I took Purple Haze,Californian Sunshine,White Lightning,Windowpane,Peyote,Mescalin in powder form,DMT and various mushrooms. Had some great fun and wonderful experiences but it had no lasting value,it was just a Disneyland for adults,as all psychedelic substances are.

 

[dafydd]

Guys, I hope you don't mind, I've had enough of the language games for now. I joined this thread because I'm passionate about turning on people to our innate ability to use our imagination to transcend self/other duality in daily life. But first one must recognize mystery when it stares one in the face. I can't do that for anybody. One must have a mystical experience. So I'm out. Thanks for the dueloges.

There's been a spider in my shower for weeks. Sometimes I sing to him, and sometimes he shares his spider knowledge with me. We're friends.

The spider doesn't give a toss about you.

 

[WWHP]

Which part of my description are you taking issue with?

You didn't describe Ayahausca, you described an idea about what happens to your brain when you drink Ayahuasca. You said using Google as a metaphor was a poor choice. I dont think you know what happens to the brain on ayahausca, I think your bringing your own presuppositions once again to the discussion. Either way, it's irrelevant and you're missing the point.

Google as metaphor was not meant to describe the activities inside the brain on ayahuasca, but rather HOW this brew is used amongst the Shipibo in relationship to other plants and knowledge.

It was an anthropological reference to a culture and body of knowledge they produce, not a biological one.

Are you suggesting that the brain of someone under the influence of ayahuasca is operating normally?

well on Ayahuasca, it's 'normal' for the brain to respond as it does. In the amazon, some drink ayahuasca every single day, so I guess their brains are operating normally in context.

Or are you saying that users have access to something outside their brain?

I think that's the interesting question here that relates to consciousness/mind overall. Materialists must assume the mind is the brain and cannot account for any other phenomenon outside of this.

Some, such as Sheldrake, suggest that the mind is apart of some sort of field and is both outside and inside of the brain.

However - the reason i find the subject matter of ayahuasca fascinating is because it *appears* to deliver knowledge that previously the conscious mind had no awareness of - which appears to support something like sheldrake's model - OR - it supports something like Julian Jaynes' model (of which Dennet is a fan of)

If the former, then you're surely contradicting yourself, since it would be suggesting that the drug had no effect. If the latter, then you'll have to provide something more in the way of evidence than mere assertion.

this doesn't even apply in anyway whatsoever to what I have said. I do not take a stance here, I am agnostic on the matter.

 

[WWHP]

I do, I am a survivor of the Sixties. I took Purple Haze,Californian Sunshine,White Lightning,Windowpane,Peyote,Mescalin in powder form,DMT and various mushrooms. Had some great fun and wonderful experiences but it had no lasting value,it was just a Disneyland for adults,as all psychedelic substances are....

Well you probably didn't do anything interesting with it -