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

[PixyMisa]

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

Don't care.

and science of mind people who will disagree.

Name one.

But I'm sure your the one who is right.

This is straightforward mainstream biology and cognitive science. It's the thing they get out of the way in the first half-hour of the first lecture in (for example) Pyschology 9.00 at MIT, because you are assumed to have already learned this.

from the paper

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

Yes, that paper does refer specificially to what David Chalmers termed Hard Problem Consciousness. However, the statement that

Consciousness cannot be reduced to neuronal firing and neuronal interactions.

Is both patently untrue and a circular argument. It's a fallacy of both fact and logic. This foolishness is rampant in the field of philosophy of the mind, which is why philosophers are given such short shrift by scientists who actually study the mind.

or Our ideas can be a misinterpretation of spirits

No.

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

Already did. But apart from that, it's bleedin' obvious.

You take a brain. You overload it with one particular neurotransmitter. It is no longer functioning properly.

Well if you don't think seeing a spirit sit down in front of you is what some would call a paranormal experience

It's a hallucination.

I really don't have any arguments for you

That much is evident.

your simply arguing semantics while i am describing experience.

No. Not at all.

You are ascribing specific interpretations to the experience, interpretations that don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

You can call it whatever you want, it doesnt subtract from the experience, of which your entirely ignorant of.

Doubly wrong.

First, it explains the experience as being located inside the brain, and its only external factor being pharmocological.

Second, I have suffered hallucinations. I just didn't claim that they were magic.

who is making what claim about which?

That would be you.

Are you even present in this discussion?

Yes. Are you?

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.

Completely wrong, as usual. That is precisely the distinction I am making, and which you are failing to make.

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.

You have addressed some of my questions, this is true. The quality of the information provided has been, shall we say, lacking, but you have responded.

I have responded too. You seem to have simply ignored everything I have said. You don't get to do that and complain that I haven't responded.

 

[PixyMisa]

it 'appears' as an other, so therefore it is referred to as an other without making a claim what it truly is.

Or any attempt to determine the facts of the matter.

On Ayahuasca, even DMT, your rational observer is still there.

No. Your observer is suffering hallucinations.

And in the experience, you have the option of communicating, by you I mean the rational observer, with what appears as an other.

Which is readily demonstrated to not actually be present.

It might not really be an other

It's not.

it may be our bi-cameral minds

We don't have bicameral minds. (Unless you are unfortunate enough to have required an corpus callosotomy to correct severe epilepsy.)

or some unknown transcendent of mind

There's no such thing.

but the point is it appears as an other.

That's as may be. Since you have made no effort whatsoever to determine what it actually is, and since it is physically impossible for it to be an "other", and since others have investigated such claims and demonstrated beyond any doubt that such hallucinations are internal, we can simply discard this as foolishness.

exactly, which I why I wont do your research for you, I don't want the homework. I provided you my commentary

And we rejected it as utterly without rational foundation.

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.

Yes you do.

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.

Dreams exist in material reality.

There are no pink unicorns in my head if you were to cut it open

Fallacy of composition.

nor are there any flying around.

Non-sequitur.

I can't help you or clarify any more than I have, it's not hard to make the distinction.

You certainly can't clarify any less.

 

[rorylee]

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.

Wow that sounds amazing, is there any info on this you could PM me or post here? i wouldn't mind looking into something like that myself =]

 

[WWHP]

Don't care.

I have responded too. You seem to have simply ignored everything I have said. You don't get to do that and complain that I haven't responded.

You seem to think that your statements have some sort of iron clad credibility - sure, you have responded to some of my questions, yet left out an entire field of them that requested data to support your position. Making a claim and phrasing your belief system into a tautology does not meaning anything, it's just a tautology. You either have to provide data, argument, or some combination of both.

So to be clear, I am not interested, at all I can assure you, in your claims or opinions. I want the data, the source data, and the argument, NOT just the conclusion, to your claims that you form into tautologies as if that actually makes them true, from the following below. If you cannot provide transparency to these questions, then I will ignore you or simply bate you around my finger for fun.

so give me the following -

1.) Data, evidence, or transparent argument that Consciousness is not a hard problem in Science, and subjective experience itself is pure neural activity - with an accompanying argument that deals with the intricate questions of a philosophical nature that lead you, or anyone else, to conclude that subjective experience itself is nothing more than neural activity. Feel free to link to any paper online if you choose.

I then want you to define neural activity and subjective experience and their distinctions, because if you cannot make that distinction (and many simply cannot and are limited conceptually to do so) - then you are not qualified to participate in this discussion, nor are you even able to define what we are even arguing about, i.e. you fail to even understand the topic enough to identify the conflicting ideas.

2.)I then want you to explain what happens when I think of a pink unicorn in my brain. If it is purely inside of my brain, in principle an image of a pink unicorn should be in my brain, somewhere. Identify which region of the brain, which research has actually captured 'images', NOT neural activity, nor recreation of an image from neural activity, but an actual bonafide image existing in the brain.

3.)IF you cannot identify that research, then all you have is an interpretation of research that you believe, repeat BELIEVE accounts for subjective experience. I'm not interested in your belief systems, i am already aware of them and not interested in arguing belief systems with fundamentalists.

4.)And most importantly, and that which you continually fail to even acknowledge, evidence of any kind that shows how either DMT or ayahuasca produces some form of brain damage or is causal in brain activity that is harmful to our minds in any form whatsoever.

Since I am making no claims in this discussion other than

1.)Reports are consistent regarding DMT, Ayahausca with communicating with some 'other' intelligence. I have supplied links to both books (DMT the Spirit Molecule, Singing to the Plants) which give critical reporting on experiments and studies of such phenomenon). I will also add to more books which detail this information, 'The Cosmic Serpent, by Jeremy Narby, and 'Supernatural' by Graham Hancock, which deliver anecdotal stories traced throughout history.

I dont expect you to go buy those books and read them and come back to me, but considering that my claim is common knowledge, it can be found by doing a topic search yourself online via google.

2.) That these experiences are very real, and a 'paranormal' experience may not be material in nature for it to be defined as a paranormal experience. A paranormal experience appears to break the laws of physics as we understand them, but it may be an illusion.

Those are my claims and the only claims I am interested in supporting from my own honest experience and the information provided in 1.)



Right now, it doesn't seem likely that you will respond to my requests mentioned here, much less the previous ones (I requested data on your dream summary, with the 'math' that you said existed, which you did not provide) because I do not believe conceptually you have the capability to do so, and I consider it most likely you have some form of sociopathy, I am hoping it means you are no more harmless than a troll, but hoping you do not have children none the less. You use magical thinking based on repetitive phrasings of tautologies which I believe is a sign of irrationality and delusion/deception. Quite common amongst fundamentalists and virtually all fundamentalists share the same form in discussion, at least that is what I believe based on my experience, which is educated on the matter.

Cheers.

 

[Nick227]

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.

Something it might be worth considering here is that the brain is essentially a highly networked parallel processor. One region of networking is termed "consciousness" but it is not qualitatively different from the myriad other networks. (This is a "Strong AI" perspective.) A great deal of processing is constantly going on, much of it not connected or only tangentially connected with this conscious network.

Now, when you take ayahuasca or similar tryptamine it could be simply that networks usually operating with a high degree of separation come into short term connection. How such a phenomenon manifests and is processed by the thinking mind may well be as an individual receiving communication from a spirit, yet this does not mean that this is what is happening. It is simply that the cultural background of the individual allows them to put the experience into this framework.

Thus, I don't see much in these types of drug experiences that really disagrees with materialism or the Strong AI notion of consciousness.

Even the ones where you appear to turn into an eagle and fly over the town, which if true seem trickier, may yet yield to materialism as our knowledge of the brain increases!

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

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

Rick's a nice guy. I think I communicated with him a bit years ago when I was interested in drug stuff. He wrote an interesting book about treating people with nn DMT if I recall. But, for me, personally, the very fact that people claim to feel more whole after these kinds of drug experiences points straight back to simple brain activity, not spirit-y stuff.

Nick

 

[WWHP]

Wow that sounds amazing, is there any info on this you could PM me or post here? i wouldn't mind looking into something like that myself =]

sure, here is the center I plan on attending, and can vouch for.

http://www.espiritudeanaconda.org/

 

[Paul2]

Since I am making no claims in this discussion other than

1.)Reports are consistent regarding DMT, Ayahausca with communicating with some 'other' intelligence. . . . .

This is not controversial that reports could be consistent, so I readily accept this claim. Many people have reported experiences very similar to each others' during hallucinations, for instance, that everyone agrees is purely subjective, so this is not controversial. I hope I interpret this claim correctly by thinking that the objective (not necessarily material) reality of the other intelligences is not a part of this claim.

2.) That these experiences are very real,

This claim is not controversial, either, taking these experiences purely as (subjective) experiences. Again, I interpret this claim as not making a statement about the objective reality of the content of those experiences, beyond any internal, subjective experience. That is, it's objectively true that I like the experience of drinking wine, but that doesn't mean that drinking wine is objectively pleasing.

and a 'paranormal' experience may not be material in nature for it to be defined as a paranormal experience. A paranormal experience appears to break the laws of physics as we understand them, but it may be an illusion.

If, by "paranormal experience," you mean a (subjective) experience whose content breaks the laws of physics as we know them, this is not controversial, either, as the same thing happens routinely in dreams.

Those are my claims and the only claims I am interested in supporting from my own honest experience and the information provided in 1.)

I don't even see why these claims need to be supported beyond common knowledge.

Nothing to see here, move along. Unless I've misinterpreted your claims.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Sunsneezer]

Ok, I'm very sorry I didn't read the link fully earlier.
Your text is inspiring and coherent. It is well written and convincing, and has a very catchy and unique title that made it a viral phenomenon. But I'd give all the credit to you personally, and not the drug, because I don't believe original ideas are the result of anything paranormal.
And maybe your idea, as inspiring as it is, is not empirical as you perceive it to be but a good story about the nature of the universe?
I want to become a shaman too!

 

[WWHP]

Something it might be worth considering here is that the brain is essentially a highly networked parallel processor. One region of networking is termed "consciousness" but it is not qualitatively different from the myriad other networks. (This is a "Strong AI" perspective.) A great deal of processing is constantly going on, much of it not connected or only tangentially connected with this conscious network.

Yes, I am aware of this and agree. From what I understand, we are still mapping the 'conscious networks', but that may have been completed recently and I am unaware.

I am a massive proponent of AI, and philosophically speaking, I am a futurist and whole hearted supporter of Ray Kurzweil and that whole crowd.

I pretty much agree with plenty of what you wrote below, however I just want to highlight something that happens plenty when we deal with this very complex topic

Now, when you take ayahuasca or similar tryptamine it could be simply that networks usually operating with a high degree of separation come into short term connection.

I agree with this as a possibility, I agree it may be this, however I want to distinguish your language here from ...it could be simply that networks usually operating with a high degree of separation come into short term connection - to - It is simply that the cultural background of the individual allows them to put the experience into this framework.

You also write...

How such a phenomenon manifests and is processed by the thinking mind may well be as an individual receiving communication from a spirit, yet this does not mean that this is what is happening.

Oh yes I absolutely agree with that..and it falls in line a bit with Julian Jaynes work on the bi-cameral mind, of which I find fascinating.

Your language reflects a reasonable possibility, one with which I agree with..however when I read further, you conclude that..

It is simply that the cultural background of the individual allows them to put the experience into this framework.

Not sure how you went from a maybe, likely, or perhaps to the very prominent IS in this statement, it doesnt seem to logically follow from your premise, of which I accept and am in agreement and knowledge of previous to this communication.

Thus, I don't see much in these types of drug experiences that really disagrees with materialism or the Strong AI notion of consciousness.

Not sure how an experience can agree or disagree, so hard for me to see what you mean here, other than what I have been saying all along - it may be a function of our brains that appears as a supernatural phenomenon, such as spirits, angels, even aliens (which is another common report as you know).

Even the ones where you appear to turn into an eagle and fly over the town, which if true seem trickier, may yet yield to materialism as our knowledge of the brain increases!

Yes, I agree, but not just our knowledge of the brain, but our knowledge of the mind, and fields in general.

Rick's a nice guy. I think I communicated with him a bit years ago when I was interested in drug stuff. He wrote an interesting book about treating people with nn DMT if I recall. But, for me, personally, the very fact that people claim to feel more whole after these kinds of drug experiences points straight back to simple brain activity, not spirit-y stuff.

hmm, not sure how the reported 'healing' (of which I have experienced massive first hand) confirms things one way or another, but would like to see how you came to that conclusion, would enjoy more of your insight here.

Thank you for your response, Nick - we are in more agreement than disagreement. Like I said, I primarily am a futurist, a proponent of AI - and approach these things with a scientific humanism that is often found amongst futurists.

 

[WWHP]

This is not controversial that reports could be consistent, so I readily accept this claim. Many people have reported experiences very similar to each others' during hallucinations, for instance, that everyone agrees is purely subjective, so this is not controversial. I hope I interpret this claim correctly by thinking that the objective (not necessarily material) reality of the other intelligences is not a part of this claim.

correct, can we move on now?

This claim is not controversial, either, taking these experiences purely as (subjective) experiences. Again, I interpret this claim as not making a statement about the objective reality of the content of those experiences, beyond any internal, subjective experience. That is, it's objectively true that I like the experience of drinking wine, but that doesn't mean that drinking wine is objectively pleasing.

correct, can we move on now?

If, by "paranormal experience," you mean a (subjective) experience whose content breaks the laws of physics as we know them, this is not controversial, either, as the same thing happens routinely in dreams.
I don't even see why these claims need to be supported beyond common knowledge.

THANK YOU!!

Nothing to see here, move along. Unless I've misinterpreted your claims.

yes, agreed, a few of you can certainly move along now and glad we are finally clear on the matter and you see what I mean.

Cheers.

 

[Nick227]

Yes, I am aware of this and agree. From what I understand, we are still mapping the 'conscious networks', but that may have been completed recently and I am unaware.

I am a massive proponent of AI, and philosophically speaking, I am a futurist and whole hearted supporter of Ray Kurzweil and that whole crowd.

I didn't read every bit of this thread but this seems to me inconsistent with where you stated that there is a "hard problem" of consciousness. Or is that me getting you mixed up?

Not sure how you went from a maybe, likely, or perhaps to the very prominent IS in this statement, it doesnt seem to logically follow from your premise, of which I accept and am in agreement and knowledge of previous to this communication.

Yes, fair enough. It could be that would have been better and more consistent.

hmm, not sure how the reported 'healing' (of which I have experienced massive first hand) confirms things one way or another, but would like to see how you came to that conclusion, would enjoy more of your insight here.

For me it's a question of integration. The network we call "conscious" is just one of myriad networks of processing simultaneously going on in the brain. If you're familiar with Global Neuronal Workspace Theory, Baars etc, then you'll know that it reinforces the Freudian notion of an unconscious mind. Creating a temporary situation for networks that are usually separated to come together can allow useful insights to emerge from unconsciousness. Afterwards, you feel better!

Thank you for your response, Nick - we are in more agreement than disagreement. Like I said, I primarily am a futurist, a proponent of AI - and approach these things with a scientific humanism that is often found amongst futurists.

No probs

Nick

 

[WWHP]

Ok, I'm very sorry I didn't read the link fully earlier.
Your text is inspiring and coherent. It is well written and convincing, and has a very catchy and unique title that made it a viral phenomenon. But I'd give all the credit to you personally, and not the drug, because I don't believe original ideas are the result of anything paranormal.

well thank you sunsneezer - I really appreciate that, and considering how we began our discussion, I very much respect your honesty and good cheer

And maybe your idea, as inspiring as it is, is not empirical as you perceive it to be but a good story about the nature of the universe?

Hmmm, well I like the sound of that. Keep in mind, I am not making a claim that it is empirical, but naturally would love to refine it and my own understanding until it is empirical.

I want to become a shaman too!

hah! good luck with that one! if your ready to eat a bland diet of fish and bananas, go without sex, and live in isolation in the jungle for at least a year - then you my friend are my hero

 

[WWHP]

I didn't read every bit of this thread but this seems to me inconsistent with where you stated that there is a "hard problem" of consciousness. Or is that me getting you mixed up?

Yes, I have stated that consciousness is considered science's hard problem. That certainly is not a unique claim nor a phrase. And I can see how it could be potentially confusing position to have, if I do believe that (which I do) and still be a strong proponent of AI and a futurist.

My problem with consciousness and brain research is more philosophical, being a deconstructionist, I find the language used to describe conscious networks to be a bit suspicious and open to misinterpretation. For example, in the project you sited, the usage of the word theatre with the description of a theatre, but with the caveat that there is no theatre in any concrete way, yet it depends upon the relationship of a theatre, the description of a theatre, yet with no audience, to describe it. This is argued to distinguish, I assume Dennet's 'Cartesian Theatre' of which I have the same problems with. If there is no audience, not sure how valuable using a theatre reference is. I have heaps of problems with that sort of stuff, but still working through it.

Personally, I have not found anything that can give me something satisfactory regarding 'experience' - only what the brain is doing when having one, not what makes the brain conscious or unconscious. And to me that is where the hard problems lay, because consciousness is a strange loop - there is something 'dimensional' ( i use that word loosely) going on in the realm of our direct experience that does not seem to be accounted for in brain activity, and by accounted for, I do not mean the neurons firing, I know that they fire in relationship to experience, and experience is effected by their firing, but I don't experience networks firing when I make love my girlfriend, I experience something that can be called 'romantic love'. I only experience networks firing when I am looking at them in a laboratory.

These two realms are hard to distinguish in discussion on the matter, and many philosophical inquiries fall apart because of that. But that is where the 'hard problem' lay with this philosopher.

For me it's a question of integration. The network we call "conscious" is just one of myriad networks of processing simultaneously going on in the brain. If you're familiar with Global Neuronal Workspace Theory, Baars etc, then you'll know that it reinforces the Freudian notion of an unconscious mind.

Yes, see above

Creating a temporary situation for networks that are usually separated to come together can allow useful insights to emerge from unconsciousness. Afterwards, you feel better!

very interesting! is there something you can point me to on that? I would love to look at the numbers in the control group.

Thanks again Nick!

 

[PixyMisa]

You seem to think that your statements have some sort of iron clad credibility

I'm merely pointing out that you are consistently making statements that are either established as factually false or completely nonsensical. This information is readily available if you took even a few minutes to look for it. You obviously have not bothered to do so, or if you have, you have ignored hard evidence in favour of your personal biases.

sure, you have responded to some of my questions, yet left out an entire field of them that requested data to support your position. Making a claim and phrasing your belief system into a tautology does not meaning anything, it's just a tautology. You either have to provide data, argument, or some combination of both.

This is, of course, categorically untrue.

So to be clear, I am not interested, at all I can assure you, in your claims or opinions. I want the data, the source data, and the argument, NOT just the conclusion, to your claims that you form into tautologies as if that actually makes them true, from the following below. If you cannot provide transparency to these questions, then I will ignore you or simply bate you around my finger for fun.

Already provided.

1.) Data, evidence, or transparent argument that Consciousness is not a hard problem in Science

Do you actually know what the term hard problem means with reference to consciousness, and why the hard problem is in fact a physical impossibility, and that there is thus no hard problem?

and subjective experience itself is pure neural activity

Simple: There is nothing else it can be, no evidence of anything else, and neural activity is sufficient.

I then want you to define neural activity and subjective experience

Neural activity is the activity of neurons.

Subjective experience is the internal perspective of the reflective (self-referential) information processing system constituted by this neural activity.

2.)I then want you to explain what happens when I think of a pink unicorn in my brain.

Information processing.

If it is purely inside of my brain, in principle an image of a pink unicorn should be in my brain, somewhere.

Wrong. There's a representation of an image of a pink unicorn.

Identify which region of the brain, which research has actually captured 'images', NOT neural activity, nor recreation of an image from neural activity, but an actual bonafide image existing in the brain.

Images don't exist in the brain. Representations of images exist in the brain.

You may, however, be interested in this experiment, where images were recreated by mapping the activity of the visual cortex using fMRI.

3.)IF you cannot identify that research, then all you have is an interpretation of research that you believe, repeat BELIEVE accounts for subjective experience. I'm not interested in your belief systems, i am already aware of them and not interested in arguing belief systems with fundamentalists.

Look, I'm talking about basic neurology, and you're talking about magic fairies. There's a fundamental disconnect, and I'm trying to establish what scientific knowledge you actually do have.

I gave a short list of basic facts earlier. Which of them do you not understand?

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.

4.)And most importantly, and that which you continually fail to even acknowledge, evidence of any kind that shows how either DMT or ayahuasca produces some form of brain damage or is causal in brain activity that is harmful to our minds in any form whatsoever.

I didn't say it causes brain damage, though that is possible. I didn't say that it's harmful - that's a value judgement. I said that it interferes with the normal function of the brain, and thus the normal operation of the mind, and that is pure fact, and blindingly obvious.

It acts as a neurotransmitter, binding to receptor sites on the neurons in your brain (as explained in the article I've linked to twice previously). If you suddenly flood the brain with a particular neurotransmitter, IT IS NO LONGER FUNCTIONING NORMALLY BY DEFINITION.

That's why it induces hallucinations.

Since I am making no claims in this discussion other than

1.)Reports are consistent regarding DMT, Ayahausca with communicating with some 'other' intelligence.

No they're not. These reports may be common. They are not consistent.

2.) That these experiences are very real, and a 'paranormal' experience may not be material in nature for it to be defined as a paranormal experience.

They are not paranormal. They are hallucinations.

A paranormal experience appears to break the laws of physics as we understand them, but it may be an illusion.[/quote[
Hallucinations are not paranormal. They are normal. Readily induced by a wide variety of drugs, various pathologies, direct brain stimulation, or sleep deprivation.

Those are my claims and the only claims I am interested in supporting from my own honest experience and the information provided in 1.)

Your claims contradict the facts.

Right now, it doesn't seem likely that you will respond to my requests mentioned here

Already have.

much less the previous ones (I requested data on your dream summary, with the 'math' that you said existed, which you did not provide) because I do not believe conceptually you have the capability to do so, and I consider it most likely you have some form of sociopathy, I am hoping it means you are no more harmless than a troll, but hoping you do not have children none the less. You use magical thinking based on repetitive phrasings of tautologies which I believe is a sign of irrationality and delusion/deception. Quite common amongst fundamentalists and virtually all fundamentalists share the same form in discussion, at least that is what I believe based on my experience, which is educated on the matter.

Do you possess any relevant scientific knowledge at all, and if so, to what level? You have displayed none whatsoever thus far, and I cannot undertake a remedial instruction course to cover the whole spectrum of K-12 education.

So, again, which of these simple established facts do you have a problem with, and why?

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.

 

[Paul2]

THANK YOU!!

My pleasure, it's good to see agreement happen when it looks like a disagreement.

Just to put a fine point on it, we don't ascribe an objective reality to the content of dreams, either. No need to respond if you agree.

 

[WWHP]

My pleasure, it's good to see agreement happen when it looks like a disagreement.

Just to put a fine point on it, we don't ascribe an objective reality to the content of dreams, either. No need to respond if you agree.

well I just HAVE to respond because I do agree and relieved we are living in agreement. Cheers my friend, thanks for the round

 

[WWHP]

oh here we go.... someone please, drain my blood.

I'm merely pointing out that you are consistently making statements that are either established as factually false or completely nonsensical.

I refer to you my last discussion with Paul2, who grasped the obvious and if he can do it, so can you.

EDIT: Oh yeah, chew on this for a bit next time you claim there is no hard problem in consciousness.

http://tinyurl.com/yc4wlpc

But I'm sure your right.

 

[Sunsneezer]

hah! good luck with that one! if your ready to eat a bland diet of fish and bananas, go without sex, and live in isolation in the jungle for at least a year - then you my friend are my hero

Yeah it must be hard... Initiations and all that... But my comment was more about suggesting that telling compelling stories about the nature of the universe and life is my understanding of what Shamans do.

When a person, group or culture says a phenomenon has a mystical explanation it doesn't mean that aid phenomenon doesn't exist, or that it can't be explained by something that is not mystical.

Stories and parables are tools of vulgarization that can be used to spread truths, but it can also make lies sound credible (I'm not trying to imply that it is what you are doing BTW). That's how bits of false common knowledge are still around today, because they are formulated in a way that rings true.

I don't want to be gratuitously confrontational (it is clear we have different views) but the more I think about it the less I'm comfortable about your use of the word 'empirical' as defined as 'something based on experience instead of reason alone'. What you got from your experience was a statement of reason and a mix of personal revelations. It was the element that motivated your introspection and theory, and was useful in your own life, but it still is subjective. I don't think your research into developing your thesis will help make it more empirical, in fact it is the opposite because you are adding more theory and speculation to it.

 

[WWHP]

Yeah it must be hard... Initiations and all that... But my comment was more about suggesting that telling compelling stories about the nature of the universe and life is my understanding of what Shamans do.

ahh, okay, I want to be a shaman too then

When a person, group or culture says a phenomenon has a mystical explanation it doesn't mean that aid phenomenon doesn't exist, or that it can't be explained by something that is not mystical.

I absolutely agree with this.

Stories and parables are tools of vulgarization that can be used to spread truths, but it can also make lies sound credible (I'm not trying to imply that it is what you are doing BTW). That's how bits of false common knowledge are still around today, because they are formulated in a way that rings true.

This opens up a very interesting subject matter to me but will not get into details - not enough time.

I don't want to be gratuitously confrontational (it is clear we have different views) but the more I think about it the less I'm comfortable about your use of the word 'empirical' as defined as 'something based on experience instead of reason alone'. What you got from your experience was a statement of reason and a mix of personal revelations. It was the element that motivated your introspection and theory, and was useful in your own life, but it still is subjective. I don't think your research into developing your thesis will help make it more empirical, in fact it is the opposite because you are adding more theory and speculation to it.

Well, either I have explained it poorly or there is some misunderstanding. Something empirical to me is knowledge that can be shared and have a truth value that is objective. My quest is to refine my experience into something empirical if that is possible. It might not be possible, but in the process of making it possible I will have self taught myself plenty, and will have become more intelligent in the process, thus proving the value of the phrase empirically in some sense...one way or another

 

[PixyMisa]

When a person, group or culture says a phenomenon has a mystical explanation it doesn't mean that aid phenomenon doesn't exist, or that it can't be explained by something that is not mystical.

Yes, it simply means that they are ignorant and wrong.

Or telling fibs to bring in gullible tourists.