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

[WWHP]

I don't see any need for being perplexed about people who report that they've heard voices in their heads. What is perplexing about this? Butsee below.

well that's your own choice. Myself, I am fascinated by consciousness, so when anyone can take DMT or ayahuasca and consistently report back communicating with entities, sometimes which deliver information that is objective and empirical, I find that perplexing. You don''t. Who cares? Advising me on what i should or should not find perplexing is a bit condescending and pointless.

This statement means nothing. The whole point of "reason" and determining if something exists is that it is independent of any one person's particular pov.

exactly, and since it is a consistent claim for those under a DMT or ayahuasca influence, I find it perplexing. And please, can you be a bit more honest and objective in your critiques? Simply say "the statement means nothing to me." That makes your statement objective. To say the statement is objectively meaningless is simply not accurate.

I presume the quotes around "other" indicate that it is not necessarily a real thing beyond voices in one's head.

it doesn't need to be, yes.

I still don't see anything that would indicate any phenomenon of interest yet.

A respectful who cares? Do you think I am here trying to make you curious or interested? If you don't find it interesting, go back to deconstructing big foot claims. The fact is a significant number of rational thinking, scientifically minded people DO FIND IT interesting.

A wide range of people hear voices in their heads for various reasons, none of which indicate the voices come from real beings. What's in this case that indicates otherwise?

not making a case for it otherwise. At this point I am beginning to wonder if you are having a conversation with the Bubblefish in your head.

I suspect that the only verification that this has happened is the reports of the people who have taken the drug, which is not such good verification. That is, how are we sure that the people never used that plant before as opposed to having used the plant before but, through semi-religious fervor or ideology, fail to report that situation accurately.

Quality research has already been done on this phenomenon. Here is the source once again.

http://www.rickstrassman.com/?q=node/4

I did get the researchers name wrong previously, his name is Rick Strassman, not Johnathan Strassman, my apologies.

You are not obligated to find it interesting. Best to move on if this is not your topic of interest.

If the situation as reported actually happened as reported, we might have something very interesting, but first you have to verify that things happened as they were reported. The problem is that, I suspect, all you have is a report, and if you want to know about the suspicions of just having a report that implies something fantastic and out of this world, just go over the ot UFO thread with Rramjet.

I have direct experience, plus an education on consciousness, philosophy, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and a strong interest in anthropology, psychology. I am fully aware of the scientific method, objectivity, and critical thinking. I remain a pure agnostic in my approach, which I believe all scientists should.

I'm perplexed. so sue me.

I don't know where you're going with your last comment on Occam's Razor. You say it's not infallible, but it's not the sort of thing that is supposed to be used such that it is infallible or not. Recall that it merely instructs us to "not multiply entities."

it does not even instruct us, it's simply a guide, and if useful, use it, and if not, don't. If you don't understand my point about Occam's Razor and the philosophy of science, best to just move on.

 

[WWHP]

How reliable is Occam's Razor?

http://discovermagazine.com/1996/nov/isoccamsrazorrus936

 

[WWHP]

okay, time for ol bubblefish to put on his horns. Although I was absolutely bored beyond belief, to the point of tears, by PixyMisa's bizarre claims which are devoid of any critical or rational thinking, I was really just coming from a more intellectual and philosophical place.

My hope was to simply discontinue discussing with him because when we discuss with the extreme elements of any ideology, i.e. the fundamentalists, we often do not achieve any progress in understanding because we are essentially dealing with a closed system that simply refuses to consider any data that they cannot account for.

But, you can have fun with them regardless - so i shall oblige Elmer Fudd below, he really wants my attention.

Hey PixyMisa - how is it when I ask you for hard data, you only give me opinion, and when I clarity that I am not making any direct claims - you constantly request the same data that you yourself do not even bother to provide?

So let's be clear,

No, he's talking middle-school science and pre-school common sense.

Data?

Also, the hard-problem is a fairy tale.

data? analysis? any steps that are transparent that we can follow to see how you came to this conclusion? Because if your saying COnsciousness is NOT a hard problem in science, that is a revolutionary and extraordinary claim - one that MUST have extraordinary evidence.

Therefore, if you simply cannot provide any evidence, or at least some rational argument as to how you came to your conclusions, then your nothing more than a 'truther', birther, denier on par with Glen Beck - so come back with evidence of your claim, okay lady?

We've done the math. Both figuratively and literally.

then show me the math. and lmfao - describe the process of your figurative mathematics.

As Ferguson noted, these drugs aren't "unlocking the mysteries of the universe" or "communicating with spirits." They're messing with the operation of your brain.

I want the data. Please point to any reference that shows how DMT or ayahuasca 'mess up the operations' in our brains.

DMT is a drug. Opioids also occur naturally in plants and in the human body. Opioids are drugs.

Frogs are amphibians. Salamanders also occur naturally in lakes and ponds. Salamanders are amphibians.

This is basically true. It's a hallucinogen, not a sedative.

It's still a drug, and it still messes up your brain chemistry, and it's still not "unlocking the mysteries of the universe" or "communicating with spirits."

Data?

hint: repeating the same thing in your head over and over might make it true to you, it does not make it true to us. So when your ready, stop practicing magical thinking and compulsions and provide actual evidence.

What realisation? That messing up your brain chemistry does not promote clarity of thought?

Data on your foundational argument in your logic structure? Because until you provide data, it makes no point to base other arguments on top of it.

If they're not real in any physical sense, then they're not real.

To properly communicate amongst scientific minded, critical thinking individuals like myself, try looking into General Semantics a bit, it will help you more. Like you should rephrase it to reflect something that is actually and independently verifiably true, such as "I don't believe that things can exist in a metaphysical or conceptual sense, things must exist in a physical sense for them to even be considered real."

Because until you do , I want the hard data and I want it now.

What problem? What mystery?

the one on the other side of your blinders.

What do you mean, "real in a subjective sense"? The only thing I can figure this to mean is "not real".

yes, easy to predict.

Of course they exist in a physical sense. They are information, and information is physical.

data?

So what you mean is, it's not real?


So what you mean is, it's not real?

your doing that magical thinking thingy again.

Dimensional? Dimensional?! Do you even know what the word means?

Probably not in a way you can follow. Let's stick with the basics, and move up to the advanced stuff when your ready.

Dark matter? How can it be dark matter?

not sure - How can we tell it is not dark matter?

There you go; morphic resonance doesn't exist either.

Data? And on this one, I want a complete deconstruction and breakdown, follow up to every single counter argument made by Rupert Sheldrake. I'm sure he'd love to hear it.

Yep.


Now you're getting warm.

just what you are doing in your spare time again?

Subjective experience is a subset of, and a perspective on, objective reality. No more, no less. There is no such thing as subjective reality.

Data? argument? all conclusion and not one transparent step for independent verification? very very sloppy thinking.

What mystery?

the one on the other side of your blinders.

You addle your brain with psychoactive drugs, you end up with an addled brain.

Sure, When you pump your glonoids with blahblah hoopla, you end up with a pumped glonoid.

Magical thinking + tautologies = utter delusions.

Please employ some sort of honest self reflection at this point and make an attempt to be rational if you want to continue with me.

If you continue to come back at me with continuing blather, I will assume something harmlessly sociopathic in your nature, i.e your a friggin' troll.

 

[Paul2]

well that's your own choice. Myself, I am fascinated by consciousness, so when anyone can take DMT or ayahuasca and consistently report back communicating with entities, sometimes which deliver information that is objective and empirical, I find that perplexing.

I checked the link to the Strassman research you gave and still didn't find any verification that what the drug-takers claimed (new info about medicines they never had before) actually happened as they said it did.

You don''t. Who cares? Advising me on what i should or should not find perplexing is a bit condescending and pointless.

I think we would both be perplexed if the facts on the ground were as claimed, but I'm saying we can't say that the facts on the ground are what they are (see directly above), so the perplexity is, at least, premature.

And please, can you be a bit more honest and objective in your critiques? Simply say "the statement means nothing to me." That makes your statement objective. To say the statement is objectively meaningless is simply not accurate.

We disagree about this, too.

not making a case for it otherwise. At this point I am beginning to wonder if you are having a conversation with the Bubblefish in your head. .

I think that you are not realizing the full implications of what you're claiming.

it does not even instruct us, it's simply a guide, and if useful, use it, and if not, don't. If you don't understand my point about Occam's Razor and the philosophy of science, best to just move on.

Occam is much more that a guide: it's an expression of rationality. To dispense with it, even when useful, is to dispense with rationality, which isn't a problem in some realms, but if you're trying to discover what reality is like, rationality is definitely needed, which means so is Occam.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Occam is much more that a guide: it's an expression of rationality.

No, it's not. There's nothing of "rationality" in Occam's razor. Occam's razor is a guideline to allow us to think about things in a way that is convenient for the human process and reasonably methodical.
But Occam's razor does not express probability of truth. It is not more likely that the simplest explanation is the right one; the point is that it makes sense to approach and examine the simplest explanation first because we believe it a) will be easier to approach and b) often produces the most useful information when examined.
It bothers me greatly when people state Occam's razor like it proves something -- "In the absence of other data, Occam's razor proves that my explanation is the one we should accept." No. Occam's razor suggests that provisionally accepting and examining the simplest explanation is useful to us -- nothing more.

 

[Paul2]

It is not more likely that the simplest explanation is the right one;

But Occam is not "the simplest explanation," Occam is "don't multiply entities." Significant difference.

 

[WWHP]

I checked the link to the Strassman research you gave and still didn't find any verification that what the drug-takers claimed (new info about medicines they never had before) actually happened as they said it did.

First off, no one is claiming the experiences are materially based in reality - rather, that consistent claims are being made regarding communicating with an 'other' intelligence. The literature is out there, if you can't find it, keep looking, you can't expect me to be your researcher, I have spent a lifetime researching this topic and I had to do that on my own, as you must.

I think we would both be perplexed if the facts on the ground were as claimed, but I'm saying we can't say that the facts on the ground are what they are (see directly above), so the perplexity is, at least, premature.

Likewise - see the above. There is literature out there that is reasonably and academically presented, both on the experience itself, shamanism in general, and ayahuasca in particular. I am making no revolutionary claim, what I speak of is common knowledge amongst those who know that these experiences of this nature happen and are common. Plus I have verified that to my own personal satisfaction having over 40 of them so far.

Again, any argument you are suppling to me that suggests I am making a claim regarding the actual physical or material existence of spirits is simply unfounded, not what I am claiming, nor is what this discussion is about.

We disagree about this, too.
I think that you are not realizing the full implications of what you're claiming.

I don't think you even understand what it is I am claiming and are prejudiced a bit in this discussion.

Occam is much more that a guide: it's an expression of rationality. To dispense with it, even when useful, is to dispense with rationality, which isn't a problem in some realms, but if you're trying to discover what reality is like, rationality is definitely needed, which means so is Occam.

Rational thinking is honest thinking, and is not synonymous with Occam's Razor, and no one is suggesting it be dispensed with. Please don't lecture me on Occam's Razor or the philosophy of science - your talking to someone educated on the matter and at best it appears to me based on your usage of language around the term 'Occam's Razor' reveals your understanding of the higher ordering of logics and rational thinking to be a bit amateur.

 

[Trent Wray]

Just to clarify ... you (Bubblefish) acknowledge the experiences are taking place in your "mind", yes?

Regardless, I'm wondering if you think it's possible during the experiences to ascertain specific information for another person, or something regarding a future event, etc and so forth? In other words, can you ask the spirits or experiences some things on another's behalf and then you bring back the answers and post them? Or are the experiences strictly limited to one's own consciousness that they are exploring?

I was going to drop out of this thread, but I had an idea ....

 

[WWHP]

Just to clarify ... you (Bubblefish) acknowledge the experiences are taking place in your "mind", yes?

yes, absolutely.

Regardless, I'm wondering if you think it's possible during the experiences to ascertain specific information for another person, or something regarding a future event, etc and so forth? In other words, can you ask the spirits or experiences some things on another's behalf and then you bring back the answers and post them?

Not something I have tried or experience, but that is something that curandero's (medicine men from the upper amazon) claim to do quite often.

 

[WWHP]

Just to clarify ... you (Bubblefish) acknowledge the experiences are taking place in your "mind", yes?

Regardless, I'm wondering if you think it's possible during the experiences to ascertain specific information for another person, or something regarding a future event, etc and so forth? In other words, can you ask the spirits or experiences some things on another's behalf and then you bring back the answers and post them? Or are the experiences strictly limited to one's own consciousness that they are exploring?

I was going to drop out of this thread, but I had an idea ....

tell you what, I may be one up on you in the 'idea' you may be having. I am actually virtually on my way out the door, off to Peru for 10 days of dieta and ayahuasca ceremony, part of which entails me sitting in the jungle in isolation for 5 or so days.

Get back to me soon with a question, and let me put the question forth in my experience. I cannot promise you I will do this 100%, I have my own reasons for going down there, but if it seems appropriate in the experience to 'test' this with you, I will come back with my honest report on the matter and we can see if there is any relevance in any answer provided. We shall agree to both be completely 'honest' with each other in this test, yes? it's not really scientific, but if both of us are honest, it could be an interesting soft experiment.

Let me know your thoughts. I am returning around the 29th.

 

[Trent Wray]

tell you what, I may be one up on you in the 'idea' you may be having. I am actually virtually on my way out the door, off to Peru for 10 days of dieta and ayahuasca ceremony, part of which entails me sitting in the jungle in isolation for 5 or so days.

Get back to me soon with a question, and let me put the question forth in my experience. I cannot promise you I will do this 100%, I have my own reasons for going down there, but if it seems appropriate in the experience to 'test' this with you, I will come back with my honest report on the matter and we can see if there is any relevance in any answer provided. We shall agree to both be completely 'honest' with each other in this test, yes? it's not really scientific, but if both of us are honest, it could be an interesting soft experiment.

Let me know your thoughts. I am returning around the 29th.

Sounds interesting ... assuming you're on US time, I'll post a couple of ?'s by the end of the day that involve both subjective and objective forms of questions. Cool?

Have a safe flight ...

ETA: Okay, here are some quick questions you might think to ask while in the experience:

(personal proof type question): What is the first stuffed animal I gave my son?
(pre-cog type question): when is the next commercial airline accident going to take place; after the timeframe of your trip being over of course (company, date, etc)?
(general woo type question): is there proof somewhere on this planet of alien / god / supernatural visitation that is definitive after scrutiny? if so, where can we find it and what should we look for specifically?
(general, subjective woo question): is it possible for something to be manifested physically from that realm, and if so, how?

 

[WWHP]

update: it looks like my trip is going to be postponed due to an expected problem with my passport. sorry trent, another time I guess. pretty disappointed here as you can imagine.

 

[Trent Wray]

update: it looks like my trip is going to be postponed due to an expected problem with my passport. sorry trent, another time I guess. pretty disappointed here as you can imagine.

No worries ... sucks when trips get cancelled or put off though.

Well, you could always use Air Nazca run by Daniken, but there is an astral layover in the Orion belt (j/k LOL)

 

[Paul2]

First off, no one is claiming the experiences are materially based in reality - rather, that consistent claims are being made regarding communicating with an 'other' intelligence.

What do you mean by "'other'" intelligence if you're not assigning it reality?

The literature is out there, if you can't find it, keep looking, you can't expect me to be your researcher, I have spent a lifetime researching this topic and I had to do that on my own, as you must.

I thought that blogging and commenting was about a conversation, not homework.

Again, any argument you are suppling to me that suggests I am making a claim regarding the actual physical or material existence of spirits is simply unfounded, not what I am claiming, nor is what this discussion is about.

But your words imply the reality of spirits, as real things (I'm not saying that you said that spirits are physical or material, that's contradictory, but it seems like you are saying that they are real). Even if at times you say they are not real, at other times you imply that they are, as in your comment about "'other' intelligence." How can you say that an experience is about communicating with some "'other' intelligence" and not imply that that other intelligence is real?

Rational thinking is honest thinking, and is not synonymous with Occam's Razor, and no one is suggesting it be dispensed with. Please don't lecture me on Occam's Razor or the philosophy of science - your talking to someone educated on the matter and at best it appears to me based on your usage of language around the term 'Occam's Razor' reveals your understanding of the higher ordering of logics and rational thinking to be a bit amateur.

Care to get into the details of this? You're offering a summary judgment as to your understanding of Occam without anything to back it up. I will gladly cede to your superior understanding of it, but only after you provide some details that establish your superiority.

 

[PixyMisa]

wow! you're still boring. amazing. surely you have some big foot supporters to go bother with your rubbish?

You don't wish to go back and attempt to remedy your failings, I take it? Because you certainly haven't made any coherent response to any of my points.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, it's pretty standard fair to admit that consciousness is science's hard problem. Sure, saying we know nothing about it may be a little extreme, but we hardly understand it in any meaningful way, and reductionism is consistently trying to reduce it back to the brain.

It's not "reductionism" that is "consistently trying to reduce it back to the brain". Consciousness is brain activity. This is bedrock, incontrovertible, scientific fact.

Your missing my point. Not making claims to their objective existence, I said a paranormal 'experience', not a paranormal reality. Never have I said spirits exist in a material sense, and indeed have stated that they may be nothing more than our ideas.

Spirits don't exist. They may be a mistaken perception of our ideas, sure, I'l grant you that. That just means that they don't exist.

The message here is that DMT and ayahuasca deliver what can be considered paranormal experiences, and to cultures having a history of paranormal experience, it is reasonable to their POV to claim spirits exist.

No, it's not paranormal, it's just psychoactive drugs preventing your brain from functioning properly. Therefore this POV is not reasonable, therefore these claims are not reasonable.

 

[PixyMisa]

well that's your own choice. Myself, I am fascinated by consciousness, so when anyone can take DMT or ayahuasca and consistently report back communicating with entities

Doesn't happen.

sometimes which deliver information that is objective and empirical

Doesn't happen.

I find that perplexing. You don''t. Who cares? Advising me on what i should or should not find perplexing is a bit condescending and pointless.

What you are finding perplexing does not happen.

exactly, and since it is a consistent claim for those under a DMT or ayahuasca influence, I find it perplexing.

It's not consistent. It is perhaps prevalent. There is no evidence at all supporting any sort of independent existence for these hallucinations, any more than there is for the hallucinations accompanying LSD, or ergot poisoning, or hypnagogia, or delerium tremens, or sleep deprivation, or epilepsy, or any of a huge variety of other sources.

And please, can you be a bit more honest and objective in your critiques?

Mote, meet beam.

A respectful who cares? Do you think I am here trying to make you curious or interested? If you don't find it interesting, go back to deconstructing big foot claims. The fact is a significant number of rational thinking, scientifically minded people DO FIND IT interesting.

Name one.

Quality research has already been done on this phenomenon. Here is the source once again.

http://www.rickstrassman.com/?q=node/4

I see no quality research here. Indeed, I see no research of any kind.

I have direct experience, plus an education on consciousness, philosophy, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and a strong interest in anthropology, psychology. I am fully aware of the scientific method, objectivity, and critical thinking.

And yet at no point have you actually applied any of these.

 

[WWHP]

What do you mean by "'other'" intelligence if you're not assigning it reality?

it 'appears' as an other, so therefore it is referred to as an other without making a claim what it truly is. On Ayahuasca, even DMT, your rational observer is still there. And in the experience, you have the option of communicating, by you I mean the rational observer, with what appears as an other.

It might not really be an other, it may be our bi-cameral minds, or some unknown transcendent of mind, but the point is it appears as an other.

I thought that blogging and commenting was about a conversation, not homework.

exactly, which I why I wont do your research for you, I don't want the homework. I provided you my commentary, and do not feel I have to present entry after entry on information you can find on the web, search on google, or buy a book on the matter.

But your words imply the reality of spirits, as real things (I'm not saying that you said that spirits are physical or material, that's contradictory, but it seems like you are saying that they are real).

you have to make a distinction between experience and material reality. A real experience may not exist in material reality, such as the dream of a pink unicorn. There are no pink unicorns in my head if you were to cut it open, nor are there any flying around. I can't help you or clarify any more than I have, it's not hard to make the distinction.

Even if at times you say they are not real, at other times you imply that they are, as in your comment about "'other' intelligence." How can you say that an experience is about communicating with some "'other' intelligence" and not imply that that other intelligence is real?

it's not hard when you can make the distinction and navigate through such an experience.

Care to get into the details of this? You're offering a summary judgment as to your understanding of Occam without anything to back it up. I will gladly cede to your superior understanding of it, but only after you provide some details that establish your superiority.

I don't need, nor want, nor am I interested to give a lecture on Occam's Razor, I can summarize it simply, applying it to very complex systems can be problematic, and applying it to consciousness and subjective experience is and can be misleading.

Again, I am not making a revolutionary claim about OR - a simple search would reveal what I write as an established critique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#Controversial_aspects_of_the_Razor

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081010215438AAPkVwp

And my critique centered around using Occam's Razor as if it is the scientific method. It is not the scientific method, it is a guide to keep things simple.

Consciousness is mind boggling - way to complex to apply occam's razor because we don't
know how to measure it to determine what can be considered 'simple' as opposed to what can be considered complex. There is no reference point.

I'm not interested in discussing it any further, if you don't understand my point here, I'm not sure you will if I spend more time elaborating it and I have to consider my time in posting here.

 

[WWHP]

It's not "reductionism" that is "consistently trying to reduce it back to the brain". Consciousness is brain activity. This is bedrock, incontrovertible, scientific fact.

I'm sure you have a theory that you swear up and down is the right one, just like all fundamentalists do, but you will find a host of philosophers and science of mind people who will disagree. But I'm sure your the one who is right.

Describing the mechanisms which cause certain events in the brain to be subjectively perceived is the .hard. problem of neuroscience. Consciousness cannot be reduced to neuronal firing and neuronal interactions. On one hand, there are brain activities that can be objectively observed, recorded and measured by an external investigator. On the other hand, there exists our private, subjective perception of some of these events. Consciousness is our primary reality; through it, we perceive ourselves and our environment; we plan and accomplish our actions, evaluate them, think about them, record them. Some believe that consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity, others assume that there is a duality of matter and spirit, and that there exists an immaterial principle, a homunculus, controlling brain functions. But there might be some other possibilities as well.

from the paper

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~sreinis/quantum.html

Spirits don't exist. They may be a mistaken perception of our ideas, sure, I'l grant you that. That just means that they don't exist.

or Our ideas can be a misinterpretation of spirits - and if spirits do not exist, then either do ideas, as they both are experiences.

No, it's not paranormal, it's just psychoactive drugs preventing your brain from functioning properly.

You going to supply the data on DMT causing the brain not to function properly?

Well if you don't think seeing a spirit sit down in front of you is what some would call a paranormal experience, I really don't have any arguments for you, your simply arguing semantics while i am describing experience. You can call it whatever you want, it doesnt subtract from the experience, of which your entirely ignorant of.

Therefore this POV is not reasonable, therefore these claims are not reasonable.

who is making what claim about which? Are you even present in this discussion?

Your not even able to make a philosophical distinction between an experience and reality and are unfit to participate in this discussion at any meaningful level.

Plus, I address all of your questions and you address hardly any of mine, you shrug off that which you cannot provide. So Your on ignore until you supply data to my questions.

 

[PixyMisa]

okay, time for ol bubblefish to put on his horns. Although I was absolutely bored beyond belief, to the point of tears, by PixyMisa's bizarre claims which are devoid of any critical or rational thinking, I was really just coming from a more intellectual and philosophical place.

No.

My hope was to simply discontinue discussing with him because when we discuss with the extreme elements of any ideology, i.e. the fundamentalists, we often do not achieve any progress in understanding because we are essentially dealing with a closed system that simply refuses to consider any data that they cannot account for.

Well, since there appear to be no fundamentalists here, this is rather the non-sequitur, isn't it?

Hey PixyMisa - how is it when I ask you for hard data, you only give me opinion, and when I clarity that I am not making any direct claims - you constantly request the same data that you yourself do not even bother to provide?

You are making claims. You are merely hiding behind the assertion that your claims are not, in fact, claims, when your claims are rightly called into question.

Data?

Look, if you slept through all twelve of so years of school l I can't fill you in on everything you missed, so I'll need to narrow this down a bit. Here are some broad points to try to bring you up to speed.

Pre-school/grade-school: Magic fairies, e.g. Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fair, God, and such like do not exist. Magic does not work. Anyone who says otherwise is deluded or lying.

Grade-school/middle-school: You think with your brain. Your brain is located inside your head. Messing up your brain is a bad idea, because once you've done that you can't think clearly. There are many drugs that adversely affect the function of your brain, from alcohol to opioids to hallucinogens. Avoid them.

data? analysis? any steps that are transparent that we can follow to see how you came to this conclusion? Because if your saying COnsciousness is NOT a hard problem in science, that is a revolutionary and extraordinary claim - one that MUST have extraordinary evidence.

Do you even know what the term "hard problem" means with reference to consciousness?

Therefore, if you simply cannot provide any evidence, or at least some rational argument as to how you came to your conclusions, then your nothing more than a 'truther', birther, denier on par with Glen Beck - so come back with evidence of your claim, okay lady?

No. The evidence has been provided; you have either ignored it or failed to grasp it. If you would care to provide specific questions that address your particular failures of understanding, I (and many others here) would be happy to help fill in those gaps.

then show me the math. and lmfao - describe the process of your figurative mathematics.

I don't even know where to start. I have to establish a baseline on what you know that is actually factually correct, because everything you have posted here has been abject nonsense.

Let's start with some simple, incontrovertible facts:

Mind is brain function.
Mind is limited in scope to the physical scope of the brain, in space and in time.
Mind does not survive nor transcend the brain. Many claims have been made that it does, but no evidence has ever been presented to support these claims.
Many drugs exist that interfere with the operation of the brain, and thus interfere with the mind. The resulting cognitive abnormalities have no reality beyond the brain.

With me so far?

I want the data. Please point to any reference that shows how DMT or ayahuasca 'mess up the operations' in our brains.

Good God, what do you think it does? That's what all psychoactive drugs do. If they didn't do that, they wouldn't be psychoactive.

Read the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine

Do you seriously think overloading your brain with one specific neurotransmitter is a good idea?

Frogs are amphibians. Salamanders also occur naturally in lakes and ponds. Salamanders are amphibians.

Yeah. As I said, DMT is a drug.

Data?

See above.

But again, seriously, what do you think it is? What do you think it's doing? You ingest it, and it alters your brain chemistry. This is established - and patently obvious - fact.

hint: repeating the same thing in your head over and over might make it true to you, it does not make it true to us. So when your ready, stop practicing magical thinking and compulsions and provide actual evidence.

You should listen to your own advice.

Data on your foundational argument in your logic structure?

Provided.

Because until you provide data, it makes no point to base other arguments on top of it.

Sorry, I didn't realise you hadn't bothered to make even the most cursory examination of the topic before wading in. I shouldn't have made such assumptions.

To properly communicate amongst scientific minded, critical thinking individuals like myself, try looking into General Semantics a bit, it will help you more.

General Semantics is just more rubbish. It was abandoned sixty years ago, and with good reason.

Like you should rephrase it to reflect something that is actually and independently verifiably true, such as "I don't believe that things can exist in a metaphysical or conceptual sense, things must exist in a physical sense for them to even be considered real."

I don't need to, because those terms are not meaningful.

Because until you do , I want the hard data and I want it now.

The hard data awaits your attention. It was there already; you just didn't bother to look.

the one on the other side of your blinders.

I repeat: What problem? What mystery?

yes, easy to predict.

Well, if you want to say not real, just say not real.

So your premise is that ayahuasca does not lead to insights of any sort and any claims of such insights or of these insights being mediated by spirits should be dismissed unless and until real, concrete evidence is provided?

Well, why didn't you say so?!

Okay, now we're on the same page.

data?

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

your doing that magical thinking thingy again.

In what way is anything I have said "magical thinking"?

Please be specific.

Probably not in a way you can follow. Let's stick with the basics, and move up to the advanced stuff when your ready.

Do you know what the word means or not?

not sure - How can we tell it is not dark matter?

Is it matter? (i.e. Does it interact with the gravitational force?) Is it dark? (i.e. Does it interact weakly or not at all with the electromagnetic force?)

Data? And on this one, I want a complete deconstruction and breakdown, follow up to every single counter argument made by Rupert Sheldrake. I'm sure he'd love to hear it.

Point to even one argument made by Rupert Sheldrake that is worth the paper it's printed on, and we'll be happy to address it.

just what you are doing in your spare time again?

In my what?

Data? argument? all conclusion and not one transparent step for independent verification? very very sloppy thinking.

Sorry, I still need to find out at what point you missed the bus, so we can work up from there.

the one on the other side of your blinders.

I'll repeat: What mystery?

Sure, When you pump your glonoids with blahblah hoopla, you end up with a pumped glonoid.

Non-responsive.

Magical thinking + tautologies = utter delusions.

In what way, again, is anything I have said "magical thinking"? Please be specific.

It seems that the simplest statements of scientific fact come as a complete surprise to you. I can't remedy that in a single post, particularly if you are not willing to learn.

Please employ some sort of honest self reflection at this point and make an attempt to be rational if you want to continue with me.

Everything I have said has been both rational and factual. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

If you continue to come back at me with continuing blather, I will assume something harmlessly sociopathic in your nature, i.e your a friggin' troll.

Do you actually, honestly, wish to learn something about this subject, or do you just want to wallow in your present ignorance? Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of; we all start out ignorant, and we all remain ignorant about most things all our lives - the Universe is simply too large for any one mind to comprehend any large part of it.

But choosing not to correct your ignorance when the opportunity is presented, that is something to be ashamed of.