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

[WWHP]

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?

not at my fingertips. we both have access to Google. I can point you to 'The Cosmic Serpent'. Jeremy Narby goes into some detail there. Also the book 'Singing to the Plants' has some great information. I do know that an unusually large number of our western pharmacology comes from the Amazonian medicines - something like 60%. Don't have that full list.

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.

oh sure, the 'set' - not denying that - but ritual, chanting, and various methods of altering consciousness have played a role in virtually all cultures, so we have to include that.

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?

sure, I think that is most likely, but what 'things' were they trying and where did they get the idea to try them? Now we can project what we believe they must have done so it fits nicely into our western paradigm, or we can also ask them how they discover things and deconstruct that process.

That's a method that has to eventually yield some result, if you extend the experiment over generations, hundreds of years.

sure, it fits into the 'trial and error' model of what we know. My point is not to disgard what we know, but to also try to 'see' what they mean from their POV as well. It's not just because it is a respectful approach, it is because it is a valuable approach in obtaining knowledge.

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.

yes, you have made that clear and I accept your honesty here.

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.

I follow your point, just so you know. it's fine to dive in and try to experience things as they appear while they are happening. We can sift through and edit the experience into true and false after the fact. It's the distinction between being 'stuck in our head' as opposed to 'surrendering to the experience of being that transcend language'.

 

[Maia]

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.


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.

(pops head in)

A lot of weird claims are made for the psychomimetics, but I will just say this (and I've discussed this around here before.) They are all serotonin agonists at the 5HT2A receptor, and there is one prescription drug that does have this effect as well. (There may be others; I don't know of any.) It's topiramate (Topamax), originally prescribed only for treatment-resistant epilepsy, now used for migraines. It's also used for compulsive/addictive behaviors such as compulsive overeating, gambling, sex addictions, PTSD, and even some very good results in clinical trials with alcoholism. While it mimics one LSD/DMT effect, it actually opposes the hallucinogenic effect. So it is absolutely not a hallucinogenic drug, and it isn't a controlled substance.

So, what's its effect? Well, I take it, so the side effects are fairly horrifying, but I don't EVER want to go off it for ANYTHING. In my opinion, yes, it does increase awareness. A lot. This does not consist of weird mystical anything, visions of spirits, expansion into heavenly realms, etc. I think that the effect of helping to break the compulsion/addiction cycle can be best described as
a big boost in awareness. There is nothing particularly mystical about this, because an awful lot of activities can increase our awareness. If you read The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, for example, you're going to be aware of a lot of facts and theories about evolutionary biology that you didn't know before.

 

[Nick227]

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.

Well, we don't know what the "final substance" really looks like, so I figure materialism these days is more a mathematical thing. But, this to me is digressing.

The brain creates consciousness and it can create the idea of something that is not material. This does not mean that something not material exists, merely that the idea of it existing can be created. You seem to be confusing an idea with reality. Am I wrong?

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?

Don't know really. I think I read one of his books years back, but I can't remember so much about it to be honest. As for Buddhism, did they have materialism 2.5 k years ago? I wouldn't have thought so.

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.

I don't understand your definition of this transcendent. What you wrote was...

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 don't see how mystery is transcendent. Something is true, or it's false, or you don't know. That's just 3 positions. How is that transcendent? Likewise yes, no and maybe. How is maybe transcendent?

Nick

 

[blobru]

I don't understand your definition of this transcendent. What you wrote was...

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.

I don't see how mystery is transcendent. Something is true, or it's false, or you don't know. That's just 3 positions. How is that transcendent? Likewise yes, no and maybe. How is maybe transcendent?

Hi, Nick. Good to see you posting again.

Slippery word, "transcendent".

I gather you're using it in a 'systems-analysis' sense, as equivalent to "emergent": triangles have properties that three line segments don't; a film has properties film cells don't; a forest has properties trees don't; a mind -- defined as a certain system of neurons -- has properties individual neurons don't. The whole greater than the sum of the parts, because the whole has properties the parts don't. The whole's properties emerge from the proper ordering, structure and sequence, of the parts.

In other usages, 'metaphysical', it typically refers to something beyond the system, that orders the system or gives it meaning (Euclid's axioms would be 'transcendent' of his geometry, I suppose). So meaningful experiences which order individuals' lives are sometimes called 'transcendent'. (Note: here properties of order are imparted top down, rather than emerging bottom up).

Bubblefish may intend a sort of 'dialectical' sense of "transcendent" -- that which unifies opposites? -- I can't say from the examples.

 

[PixyMisa]

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!

Doh! I misread that completely.

Yes, it not only makes a lot more sense the way you actually wrote it () but I also recall Dennett saying that.

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

Yes, something very much like that.

 

[PixyMisa]

So, what's its effect? Well, I take it, so the side effects are fairly horrifying, but I don't EVER want to go off it for ANYTHING. In my opinion, yes, it does increase awareness. A lot. This does not consist of weird mystical anything, visions of spirits, expansion into heavenly realms, etc. I think that the effect of helping to break the compulsion/addiction cycle can be best described as a big boost in awareness.

Hmm. I wouldn't, but then, I'm no fan at all of the way the term awareness is bandied about.

There is nothing particularly mystical about this, because an awful lot of activities can increase our awareness. If you read The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, for example, you're going to be aware of a lot of facts and theories about evolutionary biology that you didn't know before.

Like that, for example.

 

[PixyMisa]

Here are some tid bits about his influence

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

Thanks.

The problem with that is that while Dennett notes that you can't have consciousness and not know that you have it, Jaynes supplies no evidence that this is relevant. If we go back to the Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest extant work of literature, we find normal, modern, deeply introspective human beings.

As I said, Jaynes has been completely discredited for several reasons: He supplies no evidence that actually supports his position; there is no evidence that actually supports his position; people who demonstrably do not have bicameral minds display behaviours he attributes to bicameralism; and people who actually do have bicameral minds (through accident or surgery) do not display behaviour anything like what he describes.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

You have made no valid rebuttal of anything I have said. You have repeated yourself a lot, though.

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

So define them.

In how I use the phrase 'Higher Intelligence' would be a structure that can integrate, receive, and transmit more information than a 'lower' structure.

So by "higher intelligence" you mean "more processing circuitry"? A 6809 is a higher intelligence than a 6502?

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

Yes, I know that's your point of view. Your point of view is wrong in that, as in every other thing.

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

Really?

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.

Because that's what it is.

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.

This is 100% baloney.

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.

This too is 100% baloney.

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.

Deconstructed. You are just repeating commonly heard nonsense. You offer no evidence of any sort. This has been studied. It does not exist.

see what I mean? not really interested in answering those sorts of kindergarden responses.

Sorry, your failures of understanding are at the kindergarden level, so I'm responding to them at that level. Once you progress to grade school failures, I'll address those appropriately too.

All your doing is saying you have an idea in conflict.

Nope. I'm pointing out that all scientific evidence contradicts your claims.

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

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

As I correctly pointed out, in all cases the failing is entirely yours. You have not only failed to support your position with evidence, you have failed to even coherently define it.

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.

I am doing nothing of the sort. Again, it's entirely your failing.

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

Yes. Read it. It's very straightforward and uncontroversial.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THERE LADY.

You didn't read it. Read it.

See the point about flooding the brain with neurotransmitters? About hallucinations? That's simple cause and effect of brain malfunction.

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.

Read the Wikipedia article. DMT causes your brain to malfunction. End of story.

another contradiction, you state

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

Not even remotely. Addiction can be a purely phsyiological response, and can be short-cut by purely physiological means, as happens here.

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

As I said, DMT and LSD have no demonstrated clinical 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.

Countless?

As I said, ibogaine has potential clinical value, but needs further study.

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

No. The hard-wiring of (for example) our visual perception pathway is established scientific fact. Drugs cannot act the expand our visual awareness beyond its hard-wired limits. They can, of course, screw it up.

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

So you are proposing an alternate pharmacological origin for your magical fairies?

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

The same way I can comprehent the equation 1 = 0. It's very simple, but it's not true.

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.

Okay, ten points to you for seeing the connection. Yes, if mind is the outcome of purely physical processes, everything I've said is necessarily true and everything you've said is necessarily false.

The problem for you is that it has been proven beyond any rational doubt that mind is indeed the outcome of purely physical processes.

Thus everything I've said is not only demonstrably true, but necessarily so.

And everything you've said is not only demonstrably false, but necessarily so.

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

Yes, except that I have millions of controlled, replicated, cross-checked scientific studies to back me up, and you have a haphazard collection of contradictory anecdotes.

That means I win.

You need only produce one properly controlled and replicated contradictory study to contradict all my evidence. That's how science works. One contradictory result, once confirmed, overturns any theory.

However, you cannot do that, because there are no such studies.

 

[PixyMisa]

Uh-oh, here we go again...

Ah. I don't think I participated in that thread at all. The patten hasn't changed, has it?

 

[Nick227]

Bubblefish may intend a sort of 'dialectical' sense of "transcendent" -- that which unifies opposites? -- I can't say from the examples.

Hi blobru,

Yes, that's my feeling here also. It certainly appears that a dialectical perspective is innate, unnavoidable, in life. That there really is an "I" and a "you," and that these are hard, fixed things. And so I guess it innevitably becomes attractive to the mind to imagine a means to transcend this seeming innate duality.

BUT....materialism for me has already dealt with it. If self (mental selfhood) is purely an emergent phenomenon then the sense of duality that it leads to is also. You don't need to transcend anything because the whole sense that there is someone who could do such a thing is erroneous. You just need to become aware of this! Hail materialism!

Nick

 

[WWHP]

Well, we don't know what the "final substance" really looks like, so I figure materialism these days is more a mathematical thing. But, this to me is digressing.

I may be mistaken here because I am not a mathematician, and we may be crossing over semantics, but I do believe that a transcendent is and can be mathematically expressed. I prefer using Buckminster Fuller's 'Synergetics' as an example of a transcendent in this regard, which aligns closer to what I believe you are getting at with an 'emerging property'. The transcendent is the 'synergy' of all the sums working together, but it cannot be predicted by any of them individually. but we can move on since you were digressing and I don't want to confuse things unless this brings us closer to agreement.

The brain creates consciousness and it can create the idea of something that is not material. This does not mean that something not material exists, merely that the idea of it existing can be created. You seem to be confusing an idea with reality. Am I wrong?

Well I am glad you mentioned ideas. Ideas are NOT material reality, not from my POV nor how I understand them. You may have knowledge for me in the area of neuro-science that may contradict this, and I am eager to see it if so.

Ideas are an example of a transcendent emerging from a physical system, and ideas are direct 'experiences'. Their neuron 'value' is irrelevant, it is the 'experience' of information.

Where is this experience? where can ideas be found in the brain? we assume they MUST be in there, yet I am not aware of any research (and again can be wrong here) that can actually 'show' the idea other than neurons firing. I think this direct experience of information is a perfect example of a transcendent in the way that I mean transcendent.

Also, I would like to augment by changing the language a bit of your post from 'brain creates consciousness' to 'consciousness emerges from the brain'. I think we can keep our certainty value a little higher in this discussion if that phrase works for you equally as well without bringing contested claims into it.

. As for Buddhism, did they have materialism 2.5 k years ago? I wouldn't have thought so.

well we have materialism and Buddhism today, and both seem to co-mingle at all the philosophical cocktail parties just fine.

I don't understand your definition of this transcendent. I don't see how mystery is transcendent. Something is true, or it's false, or you don't know. That's just 3 positions. How is that transcendent? Likewise yes, no and maybe. How is maybe transcendent?

Nick

Well an excellent question I want to be careful of, because i don't want this thread to diverge into another area of my study, and life's work actually. I wanted to use simple and easy examples that are common. If we look but close into the word 'emergence', we can see how 'true and false' emerge from our state of 'unknown' regarding a given query.
'Unknown' is the meta logical ordering principle behind t and f. The 'meta' is the transcendent of the lower order. Now t, f, and m only exist if beings do, and are not physical properties either, so from another POV, we could say that all three of them are transcendent, but that would be digressing. Same with y, n, and maybe. yes and no emerge from maybe. This may be confusing, and we can move on if this complicates instead of elucidates.

To whit: The transcendent is the 'meta' system relative to it's lower order it governs.

Ternary systems are very elegant, however, in describing reality, and since the third value includes the 'transcendent', they can account for all phenomenon, material (physical) and immaterial (ideas). So I was attempting to place your values in a ternary system to show how simple it could be described.

Curious though, I would like to hear how you define and understand 'Materialism', which may be part of our confusion with each other in this last exchange.

Thanks again Nick, you are helping me become more intelligent

 

[WWHP]

Hi, Nick. Good to see you posting again.

Slippery word, "transcendent".

I gather you're using it in a 'systems-analysis' sense, as equivalent to "emergent": triangles have properties that three line segments don't; a film has properties film cells don't; a forest has properties trees don't; a mind -- defined as a certain system of neurons -- has properties individual neurons don't. The whole greater than the sum of the parts, because the whole has properties the parts don't. The whole's properties emerge from the proper ordering, structure and sequence, of the parts.

In other usages, 'metaphysical', it typically refers to something beyond the system, that orders the system or gives it meaning (Euclid's axioms would be 'transcendent' of his geometry, I suppose). So meaningful experiences which order individuals' lives are sometimes called 'transcendent'. (Note: here properties of order are imparted top down, rather than emerging bottom up).

Bubblefish may intend a sort of 'dialectical' sense of "transcendent" -- that which unifies opposites? -- I can't say from the examples.

Hey thanks for popping in to assist in understanding. Yes I was using a dialectical example because I assumed it was the simplest. In essence, a transcendent as you describe it (and I concur with your description) by default would unify any percieved 'opposites' by default, naturally since the transcendent is the output of the whole system working together as 'one thing'.

 

[WWHP]

Thanks.

The problem with that is that while Dennett notes that you can't have consciousness and not know that you have it, Jaynes supplies no evidence that this is relevant. If we go back to the Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest extant work of literature, we find normal, modern, deeply introspective human beings.

As I said, Jaynes has been completely discredited for several reasons: He supplies no evidence that actually supports his position; there is no evidence that actually supports his position; people who demonstrably do not have bicameral minds display behaviours he attributes to bicameralism; and people who actually do have bicameral minds (through accident or surgery) do not display behaviour anything like what he describes.

Well he has been discredited from your POV. To me, it looks like the word is still out on this, and I am far from the only person suggesting that. However, I am not claiming the truth value of the bi-cameral mind. Myself, like Dennet, just find the idea very intriguing and worthy of study, even if proven at some point to be erroneous.

So I am not interested in arguing this any further because there is nothing interesting to argue about. You go your way, and I go mine. I'm a bit more conservative in my critical thinking in this regard and it boils down to how we value the process by which we obtain knowledge and understanding.

 

[WWHP]

You have made no valid rebuttal of anything I have said. You have repeated yourself a lot, though.

your projecting again, and I am going to ignore 99% of your responses for the very reason you write above and project on to me. I don't have time for unstructured and sloppy tit for tat with you. You may have knowledge, but you have very little understanding and really suck at communicating.

So define them. edit: she is referring to;"enlightenment, full awareness"

I did: Higher Intelligence. It's the only thing they can mean to have any value.

So by "higher intelligence" you mean "more processing circuitry"? A 6809 is a higher intelligence than a 6502?

no, processing circuitry only receive and store information, it does not understand it. Apparently your a processor

Yes, I know that's your point of view. Your point of view is wrong in that, as in every other thing. Really? Because that's what it is. This is 100% baloney. This too is 100% baloney. Deconstructed. You are just repeating commonly heard nonsense. You offer no evidence of any sort. This has been studied. It does not exist. Sorry, your failures of understanding are at the kindergarden level, so I'm responding to them at that level. Once you progress to grade school failures, I'll address those appropriately too.
Nope. I'm pointing out that all scientific evidence contradicts your claims.
As I correctly pointed out, in all cases the failing is entirely yours. You have not only failed to support your position with evidence, you have failed to even coherently define it.
I am doing nothing of the sort. Again, it's entirely your failing.
Yes. Read it. It's very straightforward and uncontroversial. You didn't read it. Read it.

not interested in responding to these pesky and sloppy tit for tats. Please reformat your answers if you want to continue into a more thoughtful and considerate form.

See the point about flooding the brain with neurotransmitters? About hallucinations? That's simple cause and effect of brain malfunction. Read the Wikipedia article. DMT causes your brain to malfunction. End of story.

I read the entry on wiki. even was an editor of that entry at one point. That's your interpretation of the data. The word 'malfunction' is an interpretation. If it is 'harmful', which is what you are attesting to, then there would be very very very clear evidence of that. There isn't, none that I am aware of nor any researcher proper in these matters. And since people have been drinking ayahuasca in the amazon for millennia, we already have a very reliable test group to validate that claim one way or another.

Considering that here in the states, Ayahuasca is legal for certain religious groups to partake in, and this has won two victories in the US Supreme Court. Pregnant women, and children are allowed to drink it. The DEA tried to produce all kinds of evidence to defeat this, and lost at the level of the Supreme Court.

Your claim is substantiated solely by your own interpretation, much like everything else you write.

Okay, ten points to you for seeing the connection.

see, you even have your own interpretation of this discussion.

Yes, if mind is the outcome of purely physical processes, everything I've said is necessarily true and everything you've said is necessarily false.

The problem for you is that it has been proven beyond any rational doubt that mind is indeed the outcome of purely physical processes.

Thus everything I've said is not only demonstrably true, but necessarily so.

And everything you've said is not only demonstrably false, but necessarily so.

see previous point. Your giving me interpretations of the data, and NOT the data itself, nor the argument to how you came to the conclusion of your interpretation.

Poor form, sloppy communication, and essentially a pain in the ass.

That means I win.

I WANT you to win in this discussion, your no good to me as a loser. Yet to my POV, you constantly defeat yourself due to your own irrationality.

So let's work on form, communication, integrity, and honesty. Thank you.

 

[WWHP]

Hi blobru,

Yes, that's my feeling here also. It certainly appears that a dialectical perspective is innate, unnavoidable, in life. That there really is an "I" and a "you," and that these are hard, fixed things. And so I guess it innevitably becomes attractive to the mind to imagine a means to transcend this seeming innate duality.

this reads very..... Buuuu...nah, won't say it


oh, the transcendent of 'you' and 'I' is 'us'.

BUT....materialism for me has already dealt with it. If self (mental selfhood) is purely an emergent phenomenon then the sense of duality that it leads to is also. You don't need to transcend anything because the whole sense that there is someone who could do such a thing is erroneous.

I follow this but....

You just need to become aware of this! Hail materialism!

and hail buddhism, as what you describe is virtually it's central tenant! Nick I say this in all respect, because I truly am learning from you. I truly do not see your POV as purely a materialist one, not in any way I have encountered. Please show me where I am confused, define materialism for me as you understand it.

 

[WWHP]

Another complexity in all of this that we have not yet considered is the experience of 'feelings'. We speak of an observer, because it's a much easier abstraction to make I believe. But a 'feeling' is absolutely PURE experience, sans thinking or concepts. I think feeling itself is also a transcendent of the physical body. Where is a feeling? it's nowhere inside the brain, because it is experienced in the body and it's only that, an experience, somewhat 'electrical' in nature, the buzz and pop of the human nervous system.

We must consider that two aspects of our consciousness that are most prominent, thinking and feeling, are metaphysical, and do not exist in any materialistic sense. They are also opposites, two aspects of being, one is intuitive and the other is potentially rational.

I have a rock star neuro scientist friend who has expressed interest in helping me research ternary dialectic in relationship to the brain. He tells me that brain circuitry itself is also ternary in nature. He is such a rock star so we don't have time to follow up on things as I would like, and can't really put into any framework what he means by the brain circuitry is ternary in nature, but just thought I would throw that out there as a point of interest.

 

[WWHP]

Some may find this interesting. National Geographic did a first person account on ayahuasca. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0603/features/peru.html

 

[blobru]

Hey thanks for popping in to assist in understanding. Yes I was using a dialectical example because I assumed it was the simplest. In essence, a transcendent as you describe it (and I concur with your description) by default would unify any percieved 'opposites' by default, naturally since the transcendent is the output of the whole system working together as 'one thing'.

"Transcendence is self-defeating," as your plant spirit might say (after a few beers).

Hi blobru,

Yes, that's my feeling here also. It certainly appears that a dialectical perspective is innate, unnavoidable, in life. That there really is an "I" and a "you," and that these are hard, fixed things. And so I guess it innevitably becomes attractive to the mind to imagine a means to transcend this seeming innate duality.

Better "'names' for functioning systems", maybe.

BUT....materialism for me has already dealt with it. If self (mental selfhood) is purely an emergent phenomenon then the sense of duality that it leads to is also. You don't need to transcend anything because the whole sense that there is someone who could do such a thing is erroneous. You just need to become aware of this! Hail materialism!

Nick

Up Physis! Down Nous!

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

Have found that, too. If you say, "a chair is four legs, a back and a seat": no problem. If you say, "the property of keeping my ass a foot or so off the floor emerges from the chair parts functioning as a chair": you might as well be speaking Wood Elf. (Which is too bad, as things are a lot less confusing with a little systems theory).

 

[Nick227]

and hail buddhism, as what you describe is virtually it's central tenant! Nick I say this in all respect, because I truly am learning from you. I truly do not see your POV as purely a materialist one, not in any way I have encountered. Please show me where I am confused, define materialism for me as you understand it.

Well, I'm sure there are schools of Buddhist thought which claim "no self." But that is not what I am doing here. I'm saying the mental self is merely an emergent, not a solid thing. Buddhist doctrine is trying to lead you somewhere. It has an intent. This is different. I am not trying to lead you anywhere, simply stating facts as I see them.

When I say materialism here, it is as it relates to the phenomenon of consciousness. I'm saying consciousness is the result of brain activity. That is what it is. This is a materialist perspective. Am I wrong?

BF, you seem to me to be merely associating "materialism" with "materialists" in your mind. You apparently find me in some way different from how you expect materialists to behave, according to your experience, and so assume that what I say cannot be materialism. I don't find this approach so likely to produce insights really.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Another complexity in all of this that we have not yet considered is the experience of 'feelings'. We speak of an observer, because it's a much easier abstraction to make I believe. But a 'feeling' is absolutely PURE experience, sans thinking or concepts. I think feeling itself is also a transcendent of the physical body. Where is a feeling? it's nowhere inside the brain, because it is experienced in the body and it's only that, an experience, somewhat 'electrical' in nature, the buzz and pop of the human nervous system.

Feelings are not experienced, in terms of brain or body states. They merely are. The mind may make up a story that "I am feeling this" but this is just what it's been programmed to do. The feeling exists. The belief that it is happening "to someone" is not accurate as soon as you focus at a level below that of the whole organism.

Nick