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

[Nick227]

So from my POV, although we have firm agreement on self as an emergent property defined that way we do, we do not agree that it supports a purely materialistic universe containing no transcendent property.

For me personally, materialism has no problem with transcendence. In fact it actively predicts it. Considering mental selfhood as purely an emergent property means that the basic sensory reality is inevitably without self, that's to say non-dual. There is no actual separation merely the sense of it created by this overlay of thinking and the way the body evolved through natural selection. This is also reinforced by monism, the dominant scientific model. If monism is correct then there cannot, at base level, actually be separation.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I'm glad this discussion is happening between Nick and yourself, because as we can see, two people knowledgeable in their fields, and hold the same philosophy, will find themselves disagreeing with each other's interpretations of data, thus showing the 'hard problem' which you fail to even comprehend.

I think you'll find that Pixy understands the nature of the so-called "hard problem." There have been plenty of discussions, more over on the R&P forum.

For me, it really is an issue of self, and here ones scientific background really doesn't come so much into it. PhDs are just as liable to still seek "observers" within the brain as laymen. As Dennett has said, in assessing various models of how consciousness might arise, one short cut is to ask - is the model counter-intuitive? If not, out the window it goes!

Self is the core issue of the so-called Hard Problem. Once you can grasp that self could be purely an emergent property, and whoah this means my-self too (!), the HPC is out the window. It's gone. But that is quite a position for our egos to take on, and like I say, heaps of book-reading don't necessarily make one iota of difference here.

Nick

 

[WWHP]

I didn't mean to be insulting. It was a very general proposition so I used a term that was very wide.

no worries, didn't think that was your intention, just wanted to set the proper environment for respectful and productive discussion.

I'm not willing to attribute all the credit for ancient medicinal discoveries to a paranormal meeting with an outside spirit.

okay, maybe all medicinal discoveries would be a bit unsubstantiated, and for the sake of keeping this discussion complete, then let's just focus on the traditions of the Amazonian peoples, which potentially goes back thousands of years, and is the closest record we have in the present of a very ancient way of looking at things.

So maybe not all, but certainly some, and enough to be a significant number to think about. And to support my POV in this discussion, I really only need one if you think about it.

I think a great deal of observation and sharing of knowledge in the form of stories is the main provider for the actual data.

If you mean observation from the ecstatic experience I agree, but the data has to come from somewhere, and since we can accept they are not out there performing experiments with control groups, the data can only come from a subjective process, experientially based. Not all Amazonian peoples use ayahuasca, some use other things.

Consider anthropomorphism. It is something we all do naturally. People will describe animal behavior as if they perceive them to have rational thoughts. And when we don't have an explanation for a phenomenon, we use our own behavior as a reference. Describing phenomenons as persons are the fabric of some of the best stories. Spirits and gods are the extension of that, a mythology of applied anthropomorphism.

yes, or more broadly, projection, we project the contents of our inner understanding onto the world outside of us.

I left out meditation too... But aren't the ecstatic experiences themselves made up of observation and, by your own description, oral tradition (from the spirits).

I left out meditation as well, which could potentially fall under ecstatic experience. Estatic experiences are made up of any possible content, and impossible to say the full extant throughout history, however certain practices have been passed down to gain access to knowledge inside of a ecstatic experience. Gaining access to them is not just as simple as taking a drug or dancing in the hot sun for 30 days straight, it's what to do while your having them, how to navigate them and so forth.

That a shaman connected the dots on a spiritual journey is arguably an important part of their process, but to conclude that it means the knowledge doesn't have any other source than the mediation phase is a leap I'm not going to take.

and me either, i should have been more careful in my wording - thanks for bringing that to my attention.

One can get a lot of interesting knowledge and insight when studying a culture, its art and its traditions. But as an artist and storyteller myself, I sometimes take artistic license in order to make things more interesting. It's using relatable fiction to illustrate non-fiction.

viola, you are a shaman priest the creative process I believe can be argued as a descendent from the shaman priests of all cultures.

As a rational philosopher (I hold rationality in very very high regard and try not to deviate from it ever) we have to deconstruct backwards, read the stories, have an ecstatic experience within that framework, and then look at the empirical data to cross reference.

i too have a strong background in storytelling and creative media, it was my profession for the first 15 years of my adult life, so i get the creative stuff and process easier than the rational thinking side - that part called for more critical and analytical thinking that I was used to in the creative process.

I like BOTH creative process and Rational process working together - some fascinating things can be discovered by this approach.

I agree with the second statement. But the stories themselves are not validating anything, they are constructions of the mind made to illustrate something that can be empirical.

but they are not conscious constructions of the mind. The creative process is spontaneous, we don't think things out (at least not in a pure artistic process, we can go back and think things out while we edit and so forth) - ideas just appear, right? we get inspired (have an experience) and the ideas are just 'there'. And then we as artists then recreate those ideas or concepts into a medium which we believe best expresses them honest to our subjective visions.

I read "The Year of Living Biblically", a personal account of a guy who decided to follow literally every rule of the bible for a year. Even the ones we can't find a reason for or seem antiquated. His reasoning was that the mystical reason behind a rule might be lost in time, it might be incomprehensible, it might sound like woo... but it doesn't mean it's not based on some kind of divine knowledge if you take the bible at face value. At the start of his experiment, he was agnostic, but after one year, he realized he believed more in God than before, and also that he was happier. He didn't keep on following every rule, but the process actually benefited him in his personal life.

Interesting, unfamiliar with this.

Isn't everything coming from 'nature' since it's what the universe and ourselves are made of? I don't think we can rule out our own minds as the originator of our own creativity.

Sure, everything by default is 'nature', so let me define what I mean more specifically as 'biological nature' arriving from DNA. these stories, visions come from biological nature. Nature 'appears' to have a 'voice' and a set of instructions in this regard. It appears directly as that. That's not a claim, that's just a statement that reflects what it appears 'as'.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well certainly not until you experience them or have access to them, and until you experience them, you have no framework, because by default, both of them must be of a higher complexity in intelligence to have any meaning.

Thanks for illustrating the problem. They are not well-defined concepts in the first place.

You cannot model a higher form of intelligence with a lower form of intelligence.

Again, not well-defined. What is this "higher form of intelligence"?

They will go :swoosh: over your head, like so much of this discussion.

None of this discussion is "over my head".

well this is far from complete nor elegant.

What's that supposed to mean?

The body can also be focused into attention

No it can't.

it's not just happening in the brain or mind

Yes it is.

it's happening in the entire body

No it isn't.

and any high level athelete, martial artist (especially internal martial arts) , yoga practitioners or dancers can attest to this.

And any psychologist - and attention here is a term defined by psychology - will attest that they are talking absolute nonsense, and be able to demonstrate this as a fact.

But again, it has to be experienced to even know it exists.

That's your universal cop-out. It's just intellectual laziness called up to defend an indefensible position.

You have still failed to provide any data on this regarding DMT, other than your interpretation of what you think you understand about neuropharmacology.

I provided the data.

Here it is again:

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

See also:

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

and

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

For why flooding your brain with these chemicals does nothing productive.

Well it's a drug lady so there you go invalidating your own claim in one fell swoop.

In what sense does acknowledging that some drugs have clinical value - again, a bleedin' obvious statement of fact - invalidate anything I have said?

Dimethltryptamine and LSD are drugs with no demonstrated clinical value.
Ibogaine has potential clinical applications, but has serious side effects and the data so far is inconclusive on its value.

Opioids have clinical value as painkillers, but they have numerous side-effects.
SSRIs have clinical value as antidepressants, but they also have numerous side effects.

There are many psychoactive drugs that are actually useful, either to correct chronic chemical imbalances, or for specific short-term needs like pain relief and anaesthesia or alertness. DMT and LSD are simply not on the list.

Well at least you admit it's your opinion.

It's my opinion, but it's an opinion backed up by neuroscience. Drugs cannot increase or expand our awareness because our degree of awarenesss is hard-wired into the structure of the brain.

In other words, your claims for the effects of DMT are categorically impossible.

I'm glad this discussion is happening between Nick and yourself, because as we can see, two people knowledgeable in their fields, and hold the same philosophy, will find themselves disagreeing with each other's interpretations of data, thus showing the 'hard problem' which you fail to even comprehend.

I comprehend the so-called "hard problem" perfectly well. It doesn't exist. It is actually impossible under any form of monism consistent with the observed Universe, and any metaphysical position that is both consistent with our observations and allows for the "hard problem" is itself logically inconsistent and worthless.

This has been the subject of debate for years on this forum (in the R&P section, as Nick mentioned), and the "hard problem" proponents have been routed every time. The "hard problem" hass no connection with reality.

If what you actually mean to say is that the human brain is complex, then sure, no-one will disagree. But as I have noted repeatedly, the phrase "hard problem" as relates to consciousness has a specific meaning (it was coined by David Chalmers, head of the Philosophy Department at Australia National University) and is completely discredited.

 

[PixyMisa]

As Dennett has said, in assessing various models of how consciousness might arise, one short cut is to ask - is the model counter-intuitive? If not, out the window it goes!

Well, that approach is kind of risky, as many people find emergence to be counter-intuitive.

Self is the core issue of the so-called Hard Problem. Once you can grasp that self could be purely an emergent property, and whoah this means my-self too (!), the HPC is out the window. It's gone.

Yep.

That's the key value of Dennett's work. Chalmers states in his phrasing of "hard problem consciousness" that there can be no explanation of consciousness from a materialist perspective. Dennett provides one. Whether it is correct in all the details of how our brains actually work is not relevant to this point; just by providing a process that can produce consciousness he has completely refuted Chalmers' position.

And that's just half the story; the "hard problem" has not only been soundly refuted, it also requires a logically inconsistent metaphysics (some form of dualism). Talk about philosophical dead ends...

 

[WWHP]

Facepalm master, your kung fu is strong.

What?! What influence has Jaynes had on Dennett?

Here are some tid bits about his influence

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Julian_Jaynes

and

http://dannyreviews.com/h/Brainchildren.html

Dennet's got lotsa love for Julian Jaynes. So much so he lectures at the society.

http://www.julianjaynes.org/about-jaynes.php

and in his own words

http://www.julianjaynes.org/pdf/dennett_jaynes-software-archeology.pdf

but there is plenty more out there, let me help

http://tinyurl.com/yfhmyqp

We do not have, and never did have, as a species, bi-cameral minds.

Jaynes' work is not even worthy as literary criticism; as science it is completely discredited.

facepalm master, your skills are extraordinary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

far from discredited. has had some critiques, big deal, who doesn't. You assumed the critiques were right because he sort of slams into your world view, and once again, cannot distinguish data from interpretation of data, point of view from objective fact.


Sheesh lady, I certainly hope you are not a professional brain researcher. Maybe freshman year college? absolutely cute.

 

[WWHP]

A Google search will only tell you that this may be an original sentence, but not an original proposition. A proposition is not the same thing as a sentence. Two sentences in two different languages can express the same proposition, for instance.

On the one hand, yes you are correct, I agree, and will review the article to see if that was not made clear, thank you.

If you are simply claiming that you got the idea that intelligence can be "built from the ground up" (a la Kurzweil, who you mention), then it's already not an original proposition, since Kurzweil (at least) expressed it before you.

I did get the idea that intelligence can be built from the ground up from Kurzweil, and I do agree that AI is self teaching and the phrase is readily applied. However, Kurzweil has never stated that intelligence proper is self teaching, and although it's implied in AI, it's not summarized (at least none that I am aware of) in that manner, so I don't believe how I understand the phrase is what Kurzweil is directly getting at, just indirectly getting at. I could be wrong here, and the article was written personally, from a personal experience and not meant as an academic summary. I am still defining some of the princaples, such as self. I don't think Kurzweil and I will see the phrase as meaning the same thing across the board, but I am not sure yet.

The article has only gone viral because it mentions one (of several) fashionably "native" psychotropic substances and draws tenuous links to "expanded consciousness" and spiritual wisdom'y mumbo-jumbo.

oh wow, you're a viral marketing expert.

So what's the benefit of ayahuasca again?

http://tinyurl.com/yc8979t

 

[WWHP]

For me personally, materialism has no problem with transcendence.

Hey wait a minute buddy, that's my line! Are you sure you are not a futurist? I absolutely agree, however, the material philosophy does not account for a transcendent in it's world view or cosmological view, so curious to see how you resolve this.

In fact it actively predicts it. Considering mental selfhood as purely an emergent property means that the basic sensory reality is inevitably without self, that's to say non-dual.

I absolutely agree with this on certain levels - and you may be surprised how close your argument is to actual buddhism, and maybe that is not the first time you have heard this.

In fact, in some ways, you are giving neurological support to the buddhist point of view that contradicts the hindu point of view regarding soul.

How ya like them apples?

There is no actual separation merely the sense of it created by this overlay of thinking and the way the body evolved through natural selection.

the self is an illusion, yes

This is also reinforced by monism, the dominant scientific model. If monism is correct then there cannot, at base level, actually be separation.

Nick

well physical monism specifically, yes I agree, not monism proper because that can mean any side of the dialectic, but I know what you mean.

But I disagree that it is reinforced by monism, I think that is where it is stopped, because monism cannot allow for their to be any dimension other than physical, and direct experience is dimension occurring inside of the physical, yet it is not physical in and of itself, like you and pixy mesa state, it's just neurons firing.

So the self is the hard problem because we agree that it is an illusion, however, it is a 'real' illusion and we cannot find the illusion in the brain, we only can find the neurons that hopefully can account for it. It's the ding an sich of the illusion itself, which is another illusion, and then another, and then another, like an infinite number line all filled with illusion. Illusion exists in nature and appears exalted in imagination and experience, it's real because we have real experience, yet it doesn't exist!

Which is how I love the Dark Matter metaphor for this. Dark matter does not exist in any physical sense that physics has accounted for either, yet it makes up the vast majority of the universe.

 

[WWHP]

I think you'll find that Pixy understands the nature of the so-called "hard problem." There have been plenty of discussions, more over on the R&P forum.

I think i've had all the pixy I can tolerate on this thread, thanks

For me, it really is an issue of self, and here ones scientific background really doesn't come so much into it. PhDs are just as liable to still seek "observers" within the brain as laymen.

I agree here.

As Dennett has said, in assessing various models of how consciousness might arise, one short cut is to ask - is the model counter-intuitive? If not, out the window it goes!

lol - I don't think Dennet and I agree though that is model is counter intuitive to his worldview, i think it is intuitive to physical monism, and in fact, it can take you to no other place but where he arrives at. But I do get what the statement means.

Fyi - although at higher levels I am in profound disagreement with Dennet, over all, I love the guy and find him brilliant and really enjoy how he describes things, he is a great writer and actually has a wonderful imagination.

Self is the core issue of the so-called Hard Problem.

subjectivity yes, the essence of self and vice versa.

Once you can grasp that self could be purely an emergent property, and whoah this means my-self too (!), the HPC is out the window. It's gone. But that is quite a position for our egos to take on, and like I say, heaps of book-reading don't necessarily make one iota of difference here.

Nick

That is so Buddhist I am going to start calling you Rimpoche!

 

[WWHP]

Lady, your doing that magical thinking thingy again, avoiding the one clear rebuttal to your statements in the hope that your avoidance = the objective validity and credibility of your words. Let's watch our integrity a bit more in this discussion, eh? Still waiting here : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5727592#post5727592

In regards to

Thanks for illustrating the problem. They are not well-defined concepts in the first place.

agreed, fully aware, enlightenment are historically not well defined, but that does not mean they cannot be well defined in a complete fashion.

Again, not well-defined. What is this "higher form of intelligence"?

In how I use the phrase 'Higher Intelligence' would be a structure that can integrate, receive, and transmit more information than a 'lower' structure. The output of an higher intelligence appears more elegant than a lower structure, which can appear crude and is often incomplete. An example in logical form that can express the distinction between higher intelligence to a lower intelligence would be the relationship between ternary logical operations and binary logical operations.

None of this discussion is "over my head".

From my point of view, it is so way over your head it might as well be a GPS satellite.

I can tell this from many of your descriptions of factual things, which can be far from elegant and complete

What's that supposed to mean?

Your driven by bivalency and cannot distinguish the third value.

An example is your description of attention which only describes one element, the mental psychological. I say it is far more vast than that and includes the entire body. you say

No it can't.

as usual with no supporting argument, description, no transparent process to how you came to your conclusion. And your flat out wrong. In Certain chinese martial arts, they even have a specific word for this, called 'Yi' or mind intention. After years of training, one begins to develop Yi in all bones and joints, and learns to move the body in an entirely different manner, one's own 'sensing' ji is in the body and awareness is spread throughout. It's pretty clear on the matter and the practice develops a clear efficacy in application.

Most westerners have domesticated bodies, like work horse do compared to racing horses, and thus have no experience or framework with which they can conceptualize the process in the body, thus producing sterile theories in psychology like yours above.

Notice, by the way, in my response to your 'No it doesn't', I did NOT keep your form and just say 'Yes it does' I supplied my arugment, which you can now deconstruct. I gave you transparency to my thinking process, and if I am wrong or mistaken, I RUSH to greet the correction.

You hide yours in volumes of tautologies that magical thinking tells you are true.

such as your next few responses

Yes it is.


No it isn't.

see what I mean? not really interested in answering those sorts of kindergarden responses. All your doing is saying you have an idea in conflict. big deal. all ideas have a conflicting idea or contain the potential for conflict. Somehow you think just because there is an idea in conflict then it means the idea is false by default. It doesn't. It means it's an idea and is doing what ideas naturally do, conflict.

That's a higher meta-logical ordering that most likely has gone way over your head.

And any psychologist - and attention here is a term defined by psychology - will attest that they are talking absolute nonsense, and be able to demonstrate this as a fact.

lol - that's like saying in response to a rebuttal - 'hey, someone else in the world can not only refute what you say, but demonstrate it to be incorrect!'

show me the money lady, I'm getting tired of your claims, I want to hear your arguments.

I mean, you contradict your OWN WORDS all over the place. For example, when I say that until you experience it, you have no framework for reference, you say

That's your universal cop-out. It's just intellectual laziness called up to defend an indefensible position.

yet when I say that in regards to your own statement regarding problems with ill defined 'pure awareness' and 'enlightenment' you say -

Thanks for illustrating the problem. They are not well-defined concepts in the first place.

so it's valid when it supports your position, but invalid when it contradicts it. That's irrational and I hope you can see that.

and oh, that's not just all, when asked for EVIDENCE that DMT is HARMFUL to human cognitive functioning, you supply me with WIKIPEDIA???

did you read the article on DMT?
I provided the data.

Here it is again:

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

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THERE LADY.

so please dont make me suffer through reading more wiki pedia. either there has been a double blind clinical study on the effects of DMT and ayahuasca in relationship to cognitive damage, or there hasn't been. If there has, show me the friggin' study! it's not that hard.

See also:

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

and

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

For why flooding your brain with these chemicals does nothing productive.

I've seen enough of your so called evidence, and it appears to exist in your brain. It must be a few neurons firing, cause it sure ain't anywhere else.

In what sense does acknowledging that some drugs have clinical value - again, a bleedin' obvious statement of fact - invalidate anything I have said?

another contradiction, you state

But I don't think any drug can increase self-awareness by itself.

yet studies show efficacy with drug addiction, i.e. people on ibogane have insight into their selves which also potentially rewires the brain.

Correct, drugs to not do this by themselves, they do have to be consumed. They won't do this if you leave them sitting on the counter.

Dimethltryptamine and LSD are drugs with no demonstrated clinical value.

Very little done on DMT so not really a complete statement, and their is varying evidence on LSD, some do support, some don't.

Ibogaine has potential clinical applications, but has serious side effects and the data so far is inconclusive on its value.

you mean you cannot conclude anything by looking at the data. try also talking to countless suffering heroin addicts whose lives have turned around after one or two sessions. Compared to what other forms of treatment have had, that's astounding.

Opioids have clinical value as painkillers, but they have numerous side-effects.
SSRIs have clinical value as antidepressants, but they also have numerous side effects.

agreed

There are many psychoactive drugs that are actually useful, either to correct chronic chemical imbalances, or for specific short-term needs like pain relief and anaesthesia or alertness. DMT and LSD are simply not on the list.

agreed

It's my opinion, but it's an opinion backed up by neuroscience. Drugs cannot increase or expand our awareness because our degree of awarenesss is hard-wired into the structure of the brain.

that's too loaded with your typical semantics that I choose not to suffer through any of it since you are still admitting it's your opinion

In other words, your claims for the effects of DMT are categorically impossible.

what claims am I making about DMT proper? My claims have been about ayahuasca in particular

I comprehend the so-called "hard problem" perfectly well. It doesn't exist.

If it doesn't exist, then how can you comprehend it?

It is actually impossible under any form of monism consistent with the observed Universe, and any metaphysical position that is both consistent with our observations and allows for the "hard problem" is itself logically inconsistent and worthless.

FINALLY SHE COMES OUT AND ADMITS IT! yes, if physical monism is the operating system of the entire known and unknown universe, then not only are you correct, you MUST be correct.

however, your statement is as relevant as saying " I am correct, so naturally all ideas opposing mine MUST be incorrect"

and that's a retarded realization in a logically self evident sort of way. Really, you are a piece of work.

This has been the subject of debate for years on this forum (in the R&P section, as Nick mentioned), and the "hard problem" proponents have been routed every time. The "hard problem" hass no connection with reality.

so your references now are discussion threads on JREF? lol

If what you actually mean to say is that the human brain is complex, then sure, no-one will disagree. But as I have noted repeatedly, the phrase "hard problem" as relates to consciousness has a specific meaning (it was coined by David Chalmers, head of the Philosophy Department at Australia National University) and is completely discredited.

right, so I guess you should start using this thread as another reference point to back up your statement.

 

[Nick227]

Well, that approach is kind of risky, as many people find emergence to be counter-intuitive.

Yes, Dennett's quote was that the theory needs to be counter-intuitive. The ones that "seem right" won't stand up. I think he said "If your theory [of consciousness] isn't counter-intuitive then it's just plain wrong," or very similar. I used to have it down somewhere. He does some great quotes!

Another favourite I hopefully recall right was "A good model of consciousness will be like an abandoned factory."

Nick

 

[Nick227]

however, the material philosophy does not account for a transcendent in it's world view or cosmological view, so curious to see how you resolve this.

Well, it depends what you mean by a transcendent. If you mean "everything is one" or non-dualism rules, then as I see it materialism is in complete agreement. Other materialists might take issue, but for me materialism is fine with this.

If you mean by transcendent that god comes down from heaven and arranges the layers of creation with physical at the bottom, then I don't see materialism agreeing.

So for me it depends what you mean by "transcendent."

the self is an illusion, yes

Well, in a sense. There is a physical body, created through evolution. It is a self. Then there is a sense of there being an experiencer. This mental self is an emergent phenomenon. I would really call either an illusion. One is real and the other not quite what it seems. That's how I see it.

Nick

 

[Limbo]

Well, it depends what you mean by a transcendent. If you mean "everything is one" or non-dualism rules, then as I see it materialism is in complete agreement. Other materialists might take issue, but for me materialism is fine with this.

If you mean by transcendent that god comes down from heaven and arranges the layers of creation with physical at the bottom, then I don't see materialism agreeing.

So for me it depends what you mean by "transcendent."

If I may stick my nose in and present a link to episode 6 of The Power of Myth, which is largely about the "transcendent". A must-see.

Joseph Campbell - Masks of Eternity (6 of 6)

 

[WWHP]

Well, it depends what you mean by a transcendent.

transcendent to me is not the property but the emerging of the property. That potentially is everywhere. The transcendent of true and false is mystery. The transcendent of yes and no is maybe. I speak of futurism, Future is the transcendent of past and present. Transcendent is the third value.

And we can only speak of it or refer to it as it 'appears', not what it is, because in and of itself, it is nothing. It is not '1' thing.

If you mean "everything is one" or non-dualism rules,

NO! it is not one thing, for a thing must have a distinction, and therefore an opposite, and the transcendent is the synthesis. Unless you mean 'one thing' metaphorically, then of course I am fine with that

then as I see it materialism is in complete agreement.

Other materialists might take issue, but for me materialism is fine with this.

well I'm not sure your really a materialist, not if I deconstruct your meaning. I think you want to be one because it's more akin to reason and rationality, which is reflective of your fine nature. Technically my friend, I think any materialist would consider you a woo

I'm glad Limbo posted the link to the Joseph Campbell video, because what Joseph Campbell speaks of is supported by material reality in the same way you mean it. We don't need to have a personable god to have a transcendent, we only need a process.

If you mean by transcendent that god comes down from heaven and arranges the layers of creation with physical at the bottom, then I don't see materialism agreeing.

see what I mean? My friend, you are both buddhist and a joseph campbell scholar - and I am saying this as a compliment, I hope you don't mind me blowing your cover.

You're simply rephrasing and re-speaking eastern philosophy and trying to stuff it in a category that you can understand with your scientific mind.

Or that's how it appears to this cowboy.

Well, in a sense. There is a physical body, created through evolution. It is a self. Then there is a sense of there being an experiencer. This mental self is an emergent phenomenon. I would really call either an illusion. One is real and the other not quite what it seems. That's how I see it.

Nick

now just add the transcendent and you have a complete ternary philosophy inside of you bursting to come out. The true (physical) the false (being or ideas about being) and the emerging of the two -

by the way, from this neck of the woods, ternary philosophies are signs of high levels of intelligence, so I hope you take these as compliments

 

[WWHP]

If I may stick my nose in and present a link to episode 6 of The Power of Myth, which is largely about the "transcendent". A must-see.

Joseph Campbell - Masks of Eternity (6 of 6)

Your timing is impeccable

 

[Sunsneezer]

okay, maybe all medicinal discoveries would be a bit unsubstantiated, and for the sake of keeping this discussion complete, then let's just focus on the traditions of the Amazonian peoples, which potentially goes back thousands of years, and is the closest record we have in the present of a very ancient way of looking at things.

So maybe not all, but certainly some, and enough to be a significant number to think about. And to support my POV in this discussion, I really only need one if you think about it.

Well the one medicine that shows up I google for the Amazonian's ancient culture contribution to pharmacology... is Ayahuasca. Do you have other examples of compounds used in medicine that comes from analyzing ancient amazonian remedies?

If you mean observation from the ecstatic experience I agree, but the data has to come from somewhere, and since we can accept they are not out there performing experiments with control groups, the data can only come from a subjective process, experientially based. Not all Amazonian peoples use ayahuasca, some use other things.

I meant regular observation, as in observing nature and its attributes, looking at animal behavior, looking at how nature does things. With the naked eye, in a sober state. You can't not do it when you are surrounded by nature.
And maybe shamans were not performing experiments with control groups, but don't you think that they could have tried things on sick people until something works? That's a method that has to eventually yield some result, if you extend the experiment over generations, hundreds of years.

I left out meditation as well, which could potentially fall under ecstatic experience. Estatic experiences are made up of any possible content, and impossible to say the full extant throughout history, however certain practices have been passed down to gain access to knowledge inside of a ecstatic experience. Gaining access to them is not just as simple as taking a drug or dancing in the hot sun for 30 days straight, it's what to do while your having them, how to navigate them and so forth.

Yeah it would be quite disrespectful of me to suggest that all there is to those rituals is getting high and doing weird stuff. Since the beginning of the discussion I think I made it clear that I don't oppose that such practices can be beneficial at a social and spiritual level, and I'm not disputing the positive consequences of that may emerge from them.

As a rational philosopher (I hold rationality in very very high regard and try not to deviate from it ever) we have to deconstruct backwards, read the stories, have an ecstatic experience within that framework, and then look at the empirical data to cross reference.
[...]
but they are not conscious constructions of the mind. The creative process is spontaneous, we don't think things out (at least not in a pure artistic process, we can go back and think things out while we edit and so forth) - ideas just appear, right? we get inspired (have an experience) and the ideas are just 'there'. And then we as artists then recreate those ideas or concepts into a medium which we believe best expresses them honest to our subjective visions.
[...]
Sure, everything by default is 'nature', so let me define what I mean more specifically as 'biological nature' arriving from DNA. these stories, visions come from biological nature. Nature 'appears' to have a 'voice' and a set of instructions in this regard. It appears directly as that. That's not a claim, that's just a statement that reflects what it appears 'as'.

Let's go away from the examples of pharmacology and consciousness for a moment and talk about something more basic. Namely, fire. It is not presumptuous to declare that we have the phenomenon of fire 100% figured out nowadays. Fire is not alive, it is not spiritual, it is a chemical reaction. Before science could model and predict it with accuracy, stories that depicted fire as a character that breathes and eats, that purify and is related to what goes on in the sun were the main source of information. Our ancestors could deduce as much through observation but couldn't discover what we know today about the phenomenon of combustion, hence the tales.
Those tales were the best source of actually useful information about fire at the time, and as a simile it is still a good way to illustrate how a fire behaves to a young kid. We still use action verbs like 'choking a fire' or 'drowning a fire' or 'sleeping fire' because they are instantly understandable and true in the figurative sense.
But to still subscribe today to the belief that fire is alive in the same way we are and has a spirit with which one can communicate is not very sustainable. Walking on burning coals is a ritual that can benefit you personally and spiritually, but we know how it works (Mythbusters did it).
Maybe I would believe otherwise if I talked with fire in a trance, but I would be wrong.

 

[zooterkin]

In how I use the phrase 'Higher Intelligence' would be a structure that can integrate, receive, and transmit more information than a 'lower' structure. The output of an higher intelligence appears more elegant than a lower structure, which can appear crude and is often incomplete. An example in logical form that can express the distinction between higher intelligence to a lower intelligence would be the relationship between ternary logical operations and binary logical operations.

...

Your driven by bivalency and cannot distinguish the third value.

transcendent to me is not the property but the emerging of the property. That potentially is everywhere. The transcendent of true and false is mystery. The transcendent of yes and no is maybe. I speak of futurism, Future is the transcendent of past and present. Transcendent is the third value.

And we can only speak of it or refer to it as it 'appears', not what it is, because in and of itself, it is nothing. It is not '1' thing.

...

now just add the transcendent and you have a complete ternary philosophy inside of you bursting to come out. The true (physical) the false (being or ideas about being) and the emerging of the two -

by the way, from this neck of the woods, ternary philosophies are signs of high levels of intelligence, so I hope you take these as compliments

Uh-oh, here we go again...

 

[Nick227]

well I'm not sure your really a materialist, not if I deconstruct your meaning. I think you want to be one because it's more akin to reason and rationality, which is reflective of your fine nature. Technically my friend, I think any materialist would consider you a woo

see what I mean? My friend, you are both buddhist and a joseph campbell scholar - and I am saying this as a compliment, I hope you don't mind me blowing your cover.

Do you actually understand materialism, BF? Because to me you seem to be creating categories of "woo" and "materialism" based on the odd buzzword here and there, or something. I'm not sure.

Having taken drugs, done therapy, or read eastern philosophy does not proclude one from being a materialist. It's a philosophical position, not a reflection of personal disposition.

I'm a materialist. If you wish to dispute that, find an actual point to contend.

now just add the transcendent and you have a complete ternary philosophy inside of you bursting to come out. The true (physical) the false (being or ideas about being) and the emerging of the two -

by the way, from this neck of the woods, ternary philosophies are signs of high levels of intelligence, so I hope you take these as compliments

High level of ability to drift off into fantasy worlds, if you ask me! Hope that sounds more materialist to you!

Nick

 

[WWHP]

Do you actually understand materialism, BF?

ahh, well now we are asking the same question to each other.

Because to me you seem to be creating categories of "woo" and "materialism" based on the odd buzzword here and there, or something. I'm not sure.

really just using your language since you requested I define transcendent and you accept that materialism can allow for it. If you accept a transcendent, no 'buzz' word is necessary, it's very logical and complimentary to rational thinking. material is a physical thing, and it's transcendent is another thing, although after a different manner.

Where are the buzz words? I have simply reframed what you yourself have said. the 'self' as you describe it and as we 'experience it' is an emergent property, i.e. it is NOT what we experience, thus 'false' compared to the 'true' neurons firing.

That is simply what you are implying, have implied, and I am simply agreeing with.

Having taken drugs, done therapy, or read eastern philosophy does not proclude one from being a materialist. It's a philosophical position, not a reflection of personal disposition.

well I am just pointing out irony, no reason to take offense. Your position is virtually identical to that of buddhism and fits into the Philosophy of Joseph Campbell quite neatly. Would you describe buddhists as materialists or Joe?

I'm a materialist. If you wish to dispute that, find an actual point to contend.

the point in contention is you allow for a transcendent and the self to be an emerging property, I thought I made that clear, sorry for the confusion.

High level of ability to drift off into fantasy worlds, if you ask me! Hope that sounds more materialist to you!

Nick

Nah, it doesn't sound like materialism to me - it just sounds like your getting personal as opposed to digesting, considering what i have suggested, and it's not very helpful in this discussion nor in the consideration process.

 

[WWHP]

Uh-oh, here we go again...

hey zoo - nice to see you again. and not really. With a few exceptions, this is a very calm discussion and ternary dialectic or an attack on JREF branded skepticism has nothing to do with how I am here.